SMT RAJUL MODI,KOLKATA vs. JCIT CIR-31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 January 2018AY 2011-20123 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 an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee did not appear for hearings, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT under Section 263. Despite multiple hearing dates and proper notice, the assessee failed to appear before the tribunal. The tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for hearings despite proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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]

Smt. Rajul Modi -vs.- J.C.I.T., Circle-31, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AEAPM 8483 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G.Hangshing, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 23.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2018. ORDER

Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 29.02.2016 of C.I.T- 11, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 19.04.2017, 06.07.2017, 17.08.2017, 04.10.2017 and 28.11.2017. On these dates, notice of hearing was issued to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The notices sent have not been returned unserved by the postal authorities. When the case was called for hearing today none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 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 Smt. Rajul Modi A.Yr.2011-12 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 : “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 23.01.2018.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →