HINDUSTAN STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTDN,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 951/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 November 2017AY 2007-20083 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 assessees were not interested in prosecuting their appeals as they failed to appear on the date of hearing and did not file any adjournment petitions. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessees against orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The appeals were listed for hearing on multiple dates, but on the final hearing date, none appeared on behalf of the assessees.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of appeals due to the non-appearance of the assessees and their lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

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, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

Hearing: 24.10.2017Pronounced: 01.11.2017

& 953/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Ram Gopal Saraf -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AMAPS 8233 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 ORDER Per Bench:

1.

These appeals of the different assessees arise out of the independent orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-II, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal Nos.93 & 94/CC-XXVI/CIT(A)C-II/09-10 dated 28.02.2014 in the case of Hindustan Storage & Distribution Company Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively and the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Central-II, Kolkata in Appeal Nos. 86 & 87/CC- XXVII/CIT(A)C-II/09-10 dated 26.02.2014 and 28.02.2014 respectively in the case of Ram Gopal Saraf for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively, passed against the orders passed by the DCIT, CC-XXVII, Kolkata [in short the ld. AO] under 2 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ram Gopal Saraf A.Yr.2006-07 to 2007-08 section 153C / 153A/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as the case may be, dated 10.07.2009 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2007- 08 respectively for both the assessees.

2.

These appeals were listed for hearing on several dates i.e. 30.01.2017, 12.04.2017, 13.06.2017 & 31.08.2017. On 31.08.2017, the cases were adjourned to 24.10.2017 and both the counsels were duly informed about the same. When the cases were called for hearing on 24.10.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessees nor an adjournment petitions were filed on behalf of the assessees. It means that assessees are not interested to prosecute these appeals. Hence these appeals filed by different assessees are 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.Bhattachrjee 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 (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 assessees, if so desire, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling these orders by explaining with proper reasons for non-compliance, then these orders may be recalled. 2

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Court on 01.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →