M/S BANARASI NIKETAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-41(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 246/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 October 2017AY 2004-20052 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 is not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to the assessee to move for recalling the order if reasons for non-compliance are provided.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2004-05 was listed for hearing twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment sought. The ITAT had sent notices on multiple occasions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to prosecute it despite repeated opportunities and notices.

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

Hearing: 05/10/2017Pronounced: 05/10/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2004-05, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata dated 31.12.2014.

2.

This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 05.10.2017 but none was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. However, notices were sent by ITAT on two occasions in past i.e. on 17.07.17 & 28.08.2017 but none was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearings. 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.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →