MS SOMA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 981/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 November 2017AY 2010-20112 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 an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 was listed for hearing before the ITAT. Despite being informed, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment request filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing.

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

Hearing: 27/11/2017Pronounced: 27/11/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata dated 31.03.2016.

2.

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 27.11.2017 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 27.11.2017 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed before the Tribunal despite the service of notice upon the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions: (1) In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 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) In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 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.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →