PUSHPANJALI COMMODITIES (P) LTD.,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD -14(3) KOL., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 351/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 March 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 ITAT dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the case. The tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments regarding the necessity of effectively pursuing an appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and had also not appeared before the First Appellate Authority. The ITAT noted that the assessee did not file any adjournment application despite receiving notice.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal rather than merely filing it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

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

O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:

1.

- This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata dated 07.11.2016.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment application filed by the assessee though notice of hearing was sent to assessee through RPAD. Further, we also find that assessee had also not appeared before the First Appellate Authority and Ld. CIT(A) passed 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 CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →