BHOOGARBHAH COMPLEX PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or pursue the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was scheduled for hearing. However, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment application filed. This led the Tribunal to believe the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of pursuit. The principle of law not assisting a sleeping litigant.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri S. S. Godara, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]
Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM
This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-16, Kolkata vide appeal No. 733/CIT(A)-16/W-9(2)/2015-16 dated 23.03.2017. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata u/s. 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2012-13 vide his order dated 11.03.2015.
At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. 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 this appeal of the assessee for non-appearance.
2 Bhoogarbhah Complex 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.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026