Mohan Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”, BENCH

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Hearing: 24/07/2018Pronounced: 24/07/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Kolkata dated 26.03.2015.

Notice of hearing of this appeal was sent to the assessee at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The said notice has not been returned unserved. This appeal was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 24.07.2018. Today i.e. on 24.07.2018 when the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was made. It means that assessee is not interested 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.Bhattachargee 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 Mohan Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (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.

MOHAN INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Cases cited in this judgment