M/S DYNAMETIC OVERSEAS (P) LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS R.PIYARELALL INTERNATIONAL(P) LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2391/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to their absence and lack of communication. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, with adjournments granted. On the final hearing date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, and no adjournment request was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, “A” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM,]

Hearing: 02.05.2018Pronounced: 02.05.2018

ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM

1.

This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No.23.09.2016 passed against the order passed by the ACIT, Range-8, KOlkata [in short the ld. AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 30.03.2014 for the Asst Year 2011-12.

2. This appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on 01.02.2018 on which date an adjournment was sought and the case was accordingly adjourned to 21.03.2018. Again on 21.03.2018 an adjournment was sought and accordingly the case was adjourned to 02.05.2018 i.e. today. When the case was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was preferred by the M/s Dynametic Overseas Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 assessee. It means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the 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.Bhattacharjee 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.

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.

3. The assessee, if so desires, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order by explaining with proper reasons for non-compliance, then this order may be recalled.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Court on 02.05.2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →