SRI UDAY KEDIA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O. WARD-48(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2081/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 August 2018AY 2011-122 pages
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 AY 2011-12. The appeals were repeatedly adjourned due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,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), 14, Kolkata both dated 29-07-2016 for confirmation of imposition of penalties of Rs. 44,530/- each imposed u/s. 271B/271(1) ( c ) of the Act by the AO for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

It is noticed that the Registry fixed the appeals of assessee for the hearing on 01-03-2018 by issuance of notice under RP/AD. But on such date none appeared on behalf of assesse and the case was adjourned to 13-06-2018, which was adjourned to 18-07-2018. On 18- 07-2018, the ld. AR filed paper book, but, however on the request of ld.DR, the case was adjourned to 23-08-2018. On the said date i.e today on 23-08-2018, neither any one appeared nor there was any adjournment application filed on behalf of assessee. 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 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →