JOYDURGA LIBRARY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 481/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 October 2017AY 2011-20122 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, following established precedents, held that an appeal requires effective prosecution and not just the filing of a memo. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed, and there was no response from the assessee despite proper notice.

What were the issues?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata for the Assessment Year 2011-120 dated 26.02.2015.

2.

When the matter was called upon for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment was filed, there was no response from the side of the assessee though the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee by RPAD at the address furnished by the assessee in column 10 of the memo of appeal in form no.

36.

From the above, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. A.Y. 2011-12 Joydurga Library Vs. JCIT Rng-37 Kol. Page 2 4. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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."

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference an answered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition, as per law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →