BENGAL FERTILIZER & CHEMICALS,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C..I.T CIR - 2,JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 78/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 October 2016AY 2009-103 pages
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 active pursuit by the appellant.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple occasions, and notices were sent to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

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, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ]

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 12.10.2012 of CIT(A)- Jalpaiguri relating to AY 2009-10.

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 14 occasions. At least on nine occasions notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. But none appeared on behalf of the assesse when the case was called for hearing today i.e. 19.10.2016. It means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the 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 :

Bengal Fertilisers & Chemicals 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 19.10.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →