M/S GOLDEN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

1. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata dated 05.01.2017 for AY 2008-09 passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. We note that this appeal of assessee was dismissed for non prosecution earlier and was recalled on 01.12.2017 vide MA No. 147/Kol/2017. Again on 13.12.2017 appeal was fixed for hearing on 18.01.2018 but on that date hearing was adjourned to 08.03.2018 for non-functioning of bench. On 08.03.2018 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 16.04.2018 and notice was issued by RPAD. On 16.04.2018, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. 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 Golden Investment Management Pvt. Ltd. AY 2008-09. 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.