M/S PODDAR JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 October 2016AY 2006-20072 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear for the hearing on two occasions. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed in 2014 against an order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(B) for the assessment year 2006-2007. The appeal was adjourned once at the assessee's request.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence during the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(B)

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, “A”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, AM & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM

Hearing: 04/10/2016Pronounced: 04/10/2016

O R D E R

Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, JM:

1.

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order dated 18.11.2013, passed by CIT(A)-XVI, Kolkata, for the assessment year 2006-2007, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(B) of the I.T.Act.

2.

None appeared for and on behalf of assessee at the time of hearing of this appeal. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal was adjourned earlier on 20-7-16 at the behest of the assessee and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 04.10.2016. Today, i.e. on 04.10.2016 also none appeared on behalf of assessee. This being appeal filed in 2014, it seems that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as none is present before us at the time of hearing. 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, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 04/10/2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (NARASIMHA CHARY) लेखा सद�य / MEMBER ACCOUNTANT �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; �दनांक Dated 04/10/2016 �काश �म�ा/Prakash Mishra,�न.स/ PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Kolkata. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 271(1)(B)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →