M/S JAI BABA INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. LD. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 30.03.2016 for AY 2011-12.

At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. On 12.12.2017 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 21.02.2018 and notice was issued by RPAD. On 21.02.2018 bench did not function and hearing was fixed for 04.04.2018. On 04.04.2018 also hearing was adjourned at the request of the assessee and the case was fixed for hearing on 06.06.2018. On 06.06.2018, 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.

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.