M/S H. L. SHAW & OTHERS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-42/43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 565/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 January 2018AY 2011-20122 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, following established precedents, held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeals indicated a lack of interest. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. The appeals were adjourned twice, and on the final hearing date, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings.

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

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:

- Both appeal by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata by separate order on even dated 30.12.2015 pertain to assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12 respectively.

2.

Both appeals last fixed for hearing on 11.11.2017 and when the matter was called on for hearing, there was filed an adjournment petition from the side of the assessee. Hence, the hearing was adjourned to next Bench on today i.e. 01.01.2018. When the matter was called on for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournments filed. 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 ITA No.564-565/Kol/2016 A.Ys 09-10 & 11-12 M/s H.L. Shaw & Others (HUF) Vs. ACIT, Cir-42/43, Kol. Page 2 CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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.”

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition, as per law. In the result, both appeal of assessee stand dismissed in limine.

8.

Order pronounced in open court on 05/01/2018 ("या(यक सद!य) (लेखा सद!य) *Dkp, Sr.P.S *दनांकः- 05/01/2018 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक/Assessee-M/s H.L. Shaw & Others (HUF), 66, B.K. al Avenue, Kolkata-05 2. राज!व/Revenue-ACIT, Circle-42/43,Kolkata 3. संबं-धत आयकर आयु.त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु.त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. /वभागीय "(त(न-ध, आयकर अपील"य अ-धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ-धकरण, कोलकाता

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →