M/S. RANBHUMI FINANCIAL CONSULTANT PVT. LTD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 830/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 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 in limine for want of prosecution, citing decisions where similar appeals were dismissed due to lack of representation and prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no representation was made by the assessee. The assessee had also not provided explanations to the AO regarding additions made. This was a pattern observed in the first appellate proceedings as well.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, ‘D ‘ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

The above appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 4, Kolkata dated 31- 01-2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

It is noticed that the Registry fixed the appeal of assessee for hearing on 24-04-2018 by issuing notice dt. 09-03-2018. We find no representation on behalf of assessee on this day i.e. 24-04-2018 fixed by the registry. It is further noticed that in the first appellate proceedings before the CIT-A the assessee sought adjournment on 01- 06-2016 and the case was adjourned to 22-06-2016. According to CIT- A, neither any one appeared nor any application seeking adjournment filed on behalf of assessee. We find no representation by the assessee before CIT-A and further, we find no explanation was given to AO regarding the additions made U/Sec. 68 & 14 A of the Act. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. In view of the above, following the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →