Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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
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).
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.”
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the Court on 23.01.2018.