Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA
Before: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed
आदेश /O R D E R
PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata in appeal No.821/CIT(A)-13/Wd- 44(1)/2014-15/Kol dated 19.02.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward- 44(1), Kolkata u/s 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 18.10.2012 for assessment year 2010-11.
This appeal was last fixed for hearing on 05.10.2016. When the matter was called on for hearing, there was no response from the side of the assessee. Hence, the hearing was adjourned to next Bench and notice of hearing was issued to the assessee through DR fixing the hearing on 06.12.2016. Today, also, when the matter was called on for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment was filed. From the above, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case.
A.Y. 2010-11 Nirmal Kr. Budhia vs. ITO Wd-44(1) Kol. Page 2 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.
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."