ITO,WARD-1, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SK. AMINUL ISLAM, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 690/KOL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 July 2016AY 2008-20093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the appeal and the cross-objection were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the need for effective pursuit of appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed a cross-objection against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. Neither the Revenue nor the assessee appeared for the hearing despite multiple notices.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal or cross-objection can be dismissed for non-prosecution when neither party appears for the hearing.

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]

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A No. 690/Kol/2012
C.O.No.62/Kol/2012

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 27.02.2012 of CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata relating to AY 2008-09. The assessee has filed Cross Objection against the very same order of CIT(A).

1.

2. Though the assessee had filed a cross objection on several occasions none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore notice was directed to be served through DR by the Tribunal on 15.01.2014, 07.01.2015, 15.06.2015, 17.09.2015, 13.01.2016, 15.03.2016 and 19.05.2016. 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. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It appears that both the revenue 2 and C.O. No.62/Kol/2012 Sk.Aminul Islam. A.Yr.2008-09 and the assessee are not serious in prosecuting this appeal and the cross objection respectively. Hence the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are 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 : “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 and 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 revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the Court on 26.07.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →