ONRISE DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 885/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 August 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 held that the assessee was not serious in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing supporting case law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 was listed for hearing. Despite notice, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 BENCH “” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Kolkata’s dated 24.10.2016, passed in case No.238/CIT(A)-5/Wd-13(3)/15-16, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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, we 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:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →