ARISTO INFRACON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1462/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 August 2018AY 2012-133 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 appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the case. The Tribunal cited several precedents supporting this decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. On the scheduled hearing dates, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, and no adjournment request was filed. This indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings. The procedural aspect of an appeal being pursued effectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(B)

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, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

Hearing: 06.08.2018Pronounced: 06.08.2018

ORDER

Per M.Balaganesh, AM

1.

This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No. 1947/CIT(A)-3/W-9(1)/15-16 dated 29.05.2017 passed against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata [in short the ld. AO] under section 271(1)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 31.08.2015 for the Asst Year 2012-13.

2. This appeal was listed for hearing on several occasions. On the date of previous hearing on 20.06.2018 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was adjourned to 06.08.2018 and the notice was sent to the assessee through RPAD. On 06.08.2018 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was filed. It means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the 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 :-

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aristo Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachrjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that : “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.

2.

In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order : “If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3.

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

3. The assessee, if so desires, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order by explaining with proper reasons for non-compliance, then this order may be recalled.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Court on 06.08.2018 Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [ M.Balaganesh ] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 06.08.2018 BS, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Aristo Infracon Pvt. Ltd., P-200, 1st Floor, Scheme-IV, Kolkata – 010.

2. ITO Ward 9(1), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 069. 3..C.I.T.(A)- 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aristo Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

5.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

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 →