Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ]
Per Bench 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-III, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal Nos.14,15,69 &02/CC-XX/CIT(A)/C-III/2012-13/Kolkata dated 24.06.2014 passed against the orders passed by the A.C.I.T., Central Circle-XX, Kolkta [in short the ld. AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 20.03.2006 for the Asst Year 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 respectively.
2. These appeals were listed for hearing on 01.05.2017 and 12.06.2017. When the cases were called for hearing on 12.06.2017 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the cases were adjourned to 15.06.2017. When the cases were called for hearing on 15.06.2017 none appeared on behalf of the assesee nor any adjournment was moved on behalf of the assessee. Notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The notice so sent has not been returned unserved. It means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence the appeals filed by 2 M/s. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 the assessee 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.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.”
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.”
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 assessee, if so desires, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution.
Order pronounced in the Court on 07.07.2017
Sd/- Sd/- [A.T.Varkey] [ M.Balaganesh] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 07.07.2017 [RG PS] Copy of the order forwarded to:
1.M/s Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., 52/4/1, Ballygunje Circular Road, Kolkata-700019.
2. I.T.O., Ward-12 (1), Kolkata.
3.CIT(A)-Central-III, Kolkata 4. CIT-IV, Kolkata.
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.