SRI OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2192/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 April 2017AY 2010-20113 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 appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that an appeal requires active pursuit, not just filing. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. Notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee, but no one appeared on their behalf. The assessee also did not provide any reason for their absence or seek an adjournment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal considered whether an appeal can be dismissed solely due to the appellant's absence and failure to pursue it.

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, “B” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM]

Date of Hearing : 13.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2017. ORDER

Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 08.09.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-XX, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2010-11.

2.

Notice of hearing for 13.04.2017 was issued to the assessee by Registered Post on 23.03.2017 to the address given in Form No.36. . The said notice has not been returned unserved on the assessee. Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this 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.”

2 Sri Om Prakash Agarwal A.Yr.2010-11 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.

3.

The assessee, if so desired, 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the Court on 13.04.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →