SRI ASESH KUMAR JANA,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), MIDNAPUR, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2095/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 September 2018AY 2004-20053 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 appeals in limine for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's consistent absence and lack of interest in pursuing the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders for assessment year 2004-05. The appeals were adjourned multiple times due to the assessee's absence or lack of representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated absence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

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, ‘D ‘ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :-

Both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), XXXVI, Kolkata both dated 30-06-2014 for confirmation of imposition of penalties of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,88,447/-44,530/- respectively imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) & 271(1) ( c ) of the Act by the AO for the assessment year 2004-05.

2.

It is noticed from the record that the assesse filed these two appeals on 17-11-2014 and the registry fixed the cases of assessee initially for hearing on 6-4-2017 and intimated the same by issuing 1 & 2096/Kol/2014 Asesh Kumar Jana notice dt. 27-02-2017 by RP/AD. As there was no proceedings on the said date, the appeal stands adjourned to 31-05-2017. On such date of hearing having no appearance made on behalf of assesse nor assessee himself and as such the appeal was adjourned to 17-07-2017. The Registry issued another notice dt. 7-6-2017 by RP/AD. The above said two appeals were adjourned from time to time at the request of ld.AR/ld. DR. The Bench found that the assessee was absent on 4-9- 2017 and as such dismissed for non-prosecution. The said ex parte order dt. 4-9-2017 was recalled by this Tribunal vide its order dt. 25- 07-2018 and directed the registry to fix the appeals in due course. Accordingly, the registry fixed both the appeals above on 10-09-2018 by issuing notice dt. 6-8-2018 to assessee by RP/AD. Today (10-09- 2018) when the matter was called neither the assessee nor any representative nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Therefore, on going through record entries, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his cases. In view of the above, following the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine for want of 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 →