GEORGETTE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 451/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 October 2017AY 2009-20102 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 pursuing the appeal. Based on established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-2010 was listed for hearing. However, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal, and no adjournment request was filed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute their case.

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: 09/10/2017Pronounced: 09/10/2017

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2009-2010, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata dated 29.02.2016. 2. This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 09.10.2017 but none was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. It means that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the 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.

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 2 Georgette Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Y: 2009-2010 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 unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 3. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, that is, Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on this 09/10/2017. ( S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) (DR. A. L. Saini) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; िदनांक Dated: 09/10/2017 RS, SPS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant-Georgette Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.

2.

""थ" / The Respondent.- I.T.O Ward-2(3), Kolkata 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A), Kolkata. 4. आयकर आयु" / CIT िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. //// By Order Senior Private Secretary, Head of Office/D.D.O, I.T.A.T, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →