M/S R. PIYARELALL IMPORT & EXPORT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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 numerous dates and the same was adjourned at the request of the assessee. On the last occasion i.e. on 06.08.2018 the case was adjourned at the behest of the assessee and the last opportunity was given fixing the case for hearing on 09.10.2018. On 09.10.2018, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that 2 & 1178/Kol/2014 R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 & ITA No.1179/Kol/2014 R. Piyarelall Iron & Steel P. Ltd. AY 2009-10 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 assessee’s appeals are 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 all the appeals of the assessee for non-appearance.

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.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed.