REPUBLIC STORES (TRADE),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-56, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 716/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 April 2019AY 2010-20113 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 the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. On the scheduled date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any request for adjournment made. The assessee's power of attorney had also been withdrawn prior to the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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, “A”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.04.2019Pronounced: 24/04/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Kolkata (in short the ld. CIT(A) ] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short the Act] dated 25.03.2013.

2.

Shri Ankit Jalan, AR for the assessee has withdrawn power of attorney on 03.04.2019 to represent this case. This appeal fixed for hearing on several dates. On 01.04.2019 when the case was called for hearing the case was adjourned to 08.04.2019. At the time of hearing on 08.04.2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was made. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee

2 Republic Stores (Trade) A.Y: 2010-11 is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we 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.” (2). 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.” (3). 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.

3.

The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights; i.e. “vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subveniunt”.

4.

The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Court on 24.04.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →