M/S MDBP MARKETING SERVICES PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLKATA, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2261/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 June 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 observed that the assessee was not seriously pursuing the appeal, citing the principle that the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice. On both occasions, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal. No adjournment application was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-appearance of the assessee when they are not actively pursuing it.

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, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 26.06.2018Pronounced: 26.06.2018

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Durgapur dated 31.08.2016 for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. On 23.05.2018 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 26.06.2018 and notice was issued by RPAD. On 26.06.2018, 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 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.

MDBP Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 3. 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. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (J. Sudhakar Reddy) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated : 26th June, 2018 JD(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – M/s. MDBP Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., 16, India Exchange Place, 1st Floor, Rom No. 26, Kolkata-700 001.. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur. 2 3. The CIT(A), Durgapur - (sent through e-mail)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →