ITO, WD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. P. EDIBLE OIL LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 588/KOL/2009Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 July 2016AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not serious in prosecuting the appeal, as evidenced by their repeated non-compliance and absence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2004-05. The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple occasions, but the Revenue failed to appear or provide any reasons for their absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear and pursue the case.

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 Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM]

ORDER

Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 19.01.2009 of CIT(A)- XXXII, Kolkata relating to AY 2004-05.

2.

The appeal by the revenue was fixed for hearing on several occasions. On many occasions such as 27.09.2012, 16.09.2015, 14.01.2016, 15.03.2016, 19.05.2016, notice was directed to be served through the DR. The Department has not complied with the directions of the Tribunal. Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the department nor was any application for an adjournment was filed by the department. It appears to us that the department is not serious in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the revenue 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.”

M/s. R.P.Edible Oil Ltd. A.Yr.2004-05 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 : “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 Revenue, 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 Revenue is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the Court on 26.07.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →