KALYAN SEN,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2217/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 April 2017AY 2009-20103 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 various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that an appeal requires effective pursuit, not just filing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A). Notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on the scheduled date of hearing.

What were the issues?

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

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 : 12.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017. ORDER

Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

1.

1. This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 15.10.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-Durgapur relating to A.Y.2009-10.

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 12.04.2017. Notice of hearing was sent by Registered Post to the assessee at the address given in Form No.36. The notice so sent has not been returned unserved on the assessee and hence presumed to be duly served. 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 :

2 Shri Kalyan Sen A.Yr.2009-10 “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 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 12.04.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- [Dr.Arjun Lal Saini] [ N.V.Vasudevan ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 12.04.2017. [RG PS] Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Shri Kalyan Sen, 4/18, Suhatta Shopping Complex City Centre, Durgapur-713216.

2. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Durgapur. 3. CIT(A)-Durgapur. 4. C.I.T.-Durgapur. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →