MAX COT MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1390/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 March 2019AY 2012-133 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 noted that the assessee had also been non-compliant before the lower authorities and appeared to be not serious in prosecuting the appeal. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that an appeal must be effectively pursued.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order imposed by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT for the hearing of the appeal, despite receiving proper notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 250

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, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd……..............………………………………………………….…….…..............…...Appellant C/o P.K. Himmatsinghka & Co. 41,B.B. Ganguly Street 2nd Floor Central Plaza Kolkata – 700 012 [PAN : AABCM 8954 B] Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata….............………………………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 2nd, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March 29th , 2019 O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :-

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), dt. 24/05/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, ex-parte of the assessee.

2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent. Therefore we proceed to hear the ld. D/R.

3.

Heard the ld. D/R and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed this appeal on 27/06/2018 and the Registry, ITAT Kolkata Benches, had issued notice dt. 15/01/2019 intimating fixation of date of hearing on 12/02/2019, through RPAD. On such date on request of the ld. A/R the case was adjourned to today i.e. 07/03/2019. On perusal of the record, the date of hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13 Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd i.e., today is in the knowledge of the A/R representing the assessee and when the case was called, there was no representation. It is also noted that there was such non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A) as well. 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 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.”

4.

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

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →