SANSKRITI SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1473/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 January 2018AY 2010-112 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 noted that the assessee did not appear and had not informed of any change of address, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). The notice for the hearing was returned unserved with the remark "Left", and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed due to the appellant's non-appearance and failure to provide a correct address for service.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 02.01.2018Pronounced: 02.01.2018

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Pr.CIT-3, Kolkata dated 17.05.2016 for AY 2010-11 imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.

2.

At the time of hearing, we note that none appeared on behalf of the assessee to pursue the case. We note that the notice fixing the hearing on 02.01.2018 was sent by the Registry of this Tribunal in the address given in Form 36 i.e. 1, Russa Road East, 2nd Lane, Kolkata-700 033 which has been returned unserved with the remarks “Left”. Therefore, no purpose will be served by serving again and again notice unless the assessee/Ld. AR of the assessee takes initiative to correct the address. The assessee/Ld. AR of the assessee has not cared to inform any change of address to the Registry. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-

Sanskriti Sales (P) Ltd., AY 2010-11 admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance.

3.

We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then he is at liberty to do so, for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →