M/S. INNOVATIVE EDGE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1506/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 October 2017AY 2013-143 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. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing before the ITAT. Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment requested. This was also the case on a previous hearing date.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution by the appellant. Whether the assessee's consistent absence indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/03/2017, for the Assessment Years 2013-14.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issual of notice by RPAD. There is no request for adjournment either. On an earlier occasion when the case was posted none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Innovative Edge that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal and accordingly dismiss this appeal of the assessee.

3. 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. 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.

4.

If the assessee files an application for recall of this order, in accordance with law, and if the Bench is convinces that the assessee was prevented by sufficient case from appearing on this date of hearing, this order would be recalled, and the appeal will be posted for hearing on merits.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 31st day of October, 2017. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated :31.10.2017 {SC SPS}

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ms. Innovative Edge Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Ms. Innovative Edge 3, Commercial Building 23 N.S. Road Kolkata – 700 001

2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(2), Kol Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 110, Shantipally Kolkata- 700 107

3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →