ANUBHAV BIOTECH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), 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 12.07.2018 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 04.09.2018 upon issuing notice through RPAD. On 04.09.2018, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. We also note that before the lower authorities also the assessee was unattended. 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 assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of Anubhav Biotech Ltd., AY 2012-13 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.

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, appeal of assessee is dismissed.