PARIJAT AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 493/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 April 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 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing precedents where appeals were dismissed due to the appellant's absence and lack of steps to pursue the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT and the CIT(A) despite receiving notices. The assessee also did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or pursue the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:

- This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata dated 22.12.2016. 2. Today when the matter was called on for hearing, there was no response from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed by the assessee though notice of hearing was sent to assessee through RPAD. It was also observed that assessee also failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) despite the notices for hearing were issued upon the assessee. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. From the above, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of ITA No.493/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Parijat Agency Pvt, Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-5(2) Kol. Page 2 CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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.”

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition, as per law. In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine.

8.

Order pronounced in open court on 25/04/2018 ("या%यक सद'य) (लेखा सद'य) *Dkp, Sr.P.S )दनांकः- 25/04/2018 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Parijat Agency Pvt. Ltd. C/o Arun Jain & Associates 2B, Grant Lane, 2nd Fl. Room No.74 Kol-12

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO, Wd-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 3. संबं,धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. .वभागीय "%त%न,ध, आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड2 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण, कोलकाता

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →