M/S. RANBHUMI TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1476/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 December 2018AY 2012-132 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the appeal effectively. The assessee was advised to file an application for recalling the order if there was a just cause.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed despite proper notice. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing without any valid reason.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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 ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Ranbhumi Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.………………………………………….…….……...Appellant [PAN :AAECR 2334 M] ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata………...……………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Piyush Mukherjee, JCIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : November 29th , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : December 19th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), dt. 09/12/2016, passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

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.

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.”

2 M/s. Ranbhumi Tie Up Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13

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. 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.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →