M/S PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 945/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 February 2017AY 2010-20112 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 noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal treated the appeal as un-admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue filed an adjournment petition, while the assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application despite receiving notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11, in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that the Revenue has moved adjournment petition for the cases listed today (14-02-2017). On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application filed by assessee though the notice of hearing sent to assessee through RPAD as per A.Y. 2010-11 M/s Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cir-8, Kol. Page 2 Form 36 filed by the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not interested to prosecute its matters.

3.

Considering the facts and the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt.Ltd., 38 ITD 320, we treat the appeal as un-admitted. We further add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, so assessee 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 →