ABDUL RAHIM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 271/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 January 2018AY 2012-20133 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 due to repeated non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing relevant case law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. Despite multiple notices sent to the assessee's registered address, the assessee failed to appear for the hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite receiving notices.

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, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

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

Date of Hearing : 03.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order 14.01.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-9, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2012-13.

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 05.10.2017. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36 as address for service of notice. On 05.10.2017 the assessee did not appear and again notice was sent by RPAD to the very same address for the hearing of 15.11.2017. The assessee did not appear even on this date. The case was adjourned to 03.01.2018. Notice of hearing was sent by RPAD to the very same address. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. The said notice was not returned unserved. 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 Abdul Rahim A.Yr.2012-13 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 03.01.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →