Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon‟ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sri Gautam Das -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-32(3), Kolkata 9B, Mathur Babu Lane Kolkata – 700 015 [PAN : ADVPD 9177 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing: 19.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2018 ORDER
Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata, (hereinafter the „Ld. CIT(A)‟), dt. 24th February, 2016, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the „Act‟), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee today as well as on earlier occasions, when the matter came up before the Bench. Notice was issued through RPAD as the last opportunity. Today, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was there an application seeking adjournment of the case. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the case for non-prosecution by applying the propositions of law laid down in various judicial precedents, as follows:-
2 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sri Gautam Das “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.”
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.
The assessee is at liberty to file an application for recalling of this order u/s 254(2) of the Act and if he convinces the Bench that it was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Tribunal on the date of hearing, then this order would recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing, in accordance with law. Order pronounced in the Court on 05.01.2018