SWAGATAM MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT, KOLKATA-3, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1474/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 March 2018AY 2010-113 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear for the hearing. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the Pr.C.I.T. for AY 2010-11. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee, but no one appeared on their behalf, nor was any adjournment requested.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to their absence during the scheduled hearing.

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, “B” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]

ORDER

Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 17.05.2016 of Pr.C.I.T.-3, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2010-11.

2.

Notice of hearing for 22.02.2018 was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36 for service of notice. The said notice has not been returned unserved. Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was filed. It means that assessee is not interested 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.Bhattachrgee 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 :

Swagatam Merchandise (P)Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 “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 desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. 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 01.03.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →