Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals (ITA No. 761/Kol/2022 for AY 2011-12 and ITA No. 72/Kol/2022 for AY 2013-14) against orders of the CIT(A). Both appeals were filed belatedly, but the delay was condoned, and the appeals were admitted for hearing.
Held
Despite numerous opportunities and multiple postings for hearing, the assessee failed to appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to represent their case or substantiate the grounds raised. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals for non-prosecution.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance and failure to substantiate the grounds raised, even after the delay in filing was condoned.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM These two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 19.01.2022 & 29.11.2021, passed by the CIT(A), Kolkata-21, passed for the assessment years 2011-2012 & 2013-2014. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, ld. CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3.
has been filed belatedly by 278 days and has been filed belatedly by 10 days. In both the appeals, the assessee has filed condonation of applications stating sufficient reasons which are found to be plausible and, therefore, delay of respective days in both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are admitted for hearing. has been filed on 07.02.2022 and ITA No.761/Kol/2022 has been filed on 23.12.2022, respectively. These appeals have been posted on multiple occasions being 19 occasions in the case of ITA No.72/Kol/2022 and on 18 occasions in the case of ITA No.761/Kol/2022. None represented on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in sofar as the assessee has not been able to subsantiate with evidence in all the grounds which have been raised before us in both the appeals.