Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. J.K. Sons & Co.…………………………………………………………….…….……......Appellant 1, Mullick Street (Bara Bazar), Kolkata – 700 007 [PAN :AADFJ 3159 L] D.C.I.T CIRCLE 44 Kolkata………...……………………..……..............................Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 13, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : May 2nd ,2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 31/07/2017.
2. Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for an adjournment filed by the assessee in spite of issue of notice by RPAD. It appears that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting this 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.”
Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. J.K. Sons & Co.
In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkarvs 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.”
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 unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
3. We observe that if the Assessee is advised to file appropriate application for recalling the order on just cause it will be decided in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.