M/S SUSHILA COKE & MINERALS,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WD-2(2), HAZARIBAGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 312/RAN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 February 2019AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 was filed against an order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.312/Ran/2016 Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s Sushila Coke & Commissioner of Income- बनाम Minerals, Suresh Colony, tax, Ravindra Path, / Hazaribagh V/s. Hazaribagh [PAN No. ABBFS 9152 R] .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent None अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Chandan Das, JCIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Hazaribag’s order dated 08.09.2016 passed in case No.19/HZB/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for an adjournment filed by the assessee in spite of issue of notice by RPAD. It appears that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. For this view, I find support from the following decisions:- "1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that: "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it."

ITA No. 312/Ran/16 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs. CIT, HZB Page 2 3. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order: "If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference." 4. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.38 ITD 320(Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 5. I observe that if the Assessee is advised to file appropriate application for recalling the order on just cause it will be decided in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. Order is pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by putting on Notice Board on 13/02/2019 Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Ranchi, *Dkp/Sr.PS �दनांकः- 13/02/2019 रांची आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-M/s Sushila Coke & Minerals, Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-CIT, Ravindra Path, Hazaribagh 3. संबं$धत आयकर आयु'त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु'त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. (वभागीय �+त+न$ध, आयकर अपील�य अ$धकरण रांची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड- फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Sr. Private Secretary/P.S आयकर अपील�य अ$धकरण, रांची ।

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →