TAPAN KR. CHOWDHURY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/89/2011HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000037201107 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal (ITA/89/2011). The Court noted that a stop order had been passed on January 15, 2024, giving the appellant a last chance to argue the old appeal. Despite this, the learned counsel for the appellant insisted on an adjournment on February 7, 2024. As the appellant was not ready to argue the case and had not complied with the previous order, the Court found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal. No specific findings on the merits of the income tax assessment were made, as the dismissal was procedural.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA/89/2011, was listed before the High Court at Calcutta, Original Side, on February 7, 2024. The appellant was Tapan Kr. Chowdhury, and the respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. The matter had previously been listed on January 15, 2024, when no one appeared for the appellant, and the Court granted a last chance to argue the old appeal, listing it for February 2024. Despite the previous order, the learned counsel for the appellant insisted on an adjournment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellant's failure to argue the case despite being granted a last chance and a previous stop order being in place. This issue turns on the procedural conduct of the appellant and the Court's discretion in managing its cause list. Contentions: Assessee: The appellant's counsel insisted on an adjournment. Revenue: The learned standing counsel for the respondent/department was present.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O-18 ITA/89/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE TAPAN KR. CHOWDHURY -Versus- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 7th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...for the respondent. 1. Mr. Somak Basu, learned counsel for the appellant has appeared through virtual mode. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the respondent/department is present. 2. On 15.01.2024 this Court passed the following order: “The Court: When the matter was called on none appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent/ Income Tax Department is present. List the matter in the monthly list of February, 2024, so as to give a last chance to the appellant to argue this old appeal.”

2 3. Despite the afore-quoted stop order, learned counsel for the appellant has insisted to adjourn the appeal. 4. Since a stop order was passed and yet the appellant is not ready to argue the case, therefore, the appeal (ITA/89/2011) is dismissed. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) As.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →