PARAMSUKH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 605/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 January 2019AY 2013-142 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 appeared to be not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Paramsukh Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the ITAT for AY 2013-14. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application for the hearing dates. The ITAT had sent notices through RPAD, but there was no representation from the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the case before the Tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “B(SMC

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Hearing: 30.01.2019Pronounced: 30.01.2019

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata dated 24.11.2017 for AY 2013-14.

2.

At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. Case was earlier fixed for hearing on 19.12.2018, and the same was adjourned to 30.01.2019 for non-appearance of the assessee and notice fixing the date of hearing for 30.01.2019 was sent through RPAD and the Acknowledgment Slip is placed on record. On 30.01.2019, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the Paramsukh Properties Pvt. Ltd, AY:2013-14 assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance.

3.

We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then it is at liberty to do so for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Dated : 30th January, 2019 Jd. (Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Paramsukh Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chhaparia & Associates, Chartered Accountants, 8, Camac Street, Shantiniketan Building, 5th floor, Room No. 2, Kolkata-700 017. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-15(1), Kolkata. 2 3. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

4. CIT, Kolkata.

5.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →