SAMIT SARKAR,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 965/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 November 2016AY 2009-20102 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 consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was listed for hearing. The assessee had previously requested an adjournment and on the current date, again failed to appear.

What were the issues?

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

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, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

Hearing: 29.11.2016Pronounced: 29.11.2016

ORDER

Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM:

1.

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-19, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 03/CIT(A)-19/Kol/2014-15 dated 09.02.2016. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-24, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2009-10 vide his order dated 30.12.2011.

2.

None appeared for and on behalf of assessee at the time of hearing of this appeal. At the outset, it is noticed that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 28.09.2016 the case was adjourned to 29.11.2016 at the request of the Ld. AR of the assessee which request letter dated 28.09.2016 has been placed on record. Today, i.e. on 29.11.2016 also none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It seems that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as none is present before us at the time of hearing or no communication has been made by the assessee in respect of his change of address. Hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 3. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 29th November, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →