VHCL INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1036/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 July 2016AY 2005-062 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal diligently. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed despite proper notice being sent.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear or pursue the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(1)

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, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA

Before: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Kolkata dated 10.01.2013. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata u/s 147/143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 08.12.2009 for assessment year 2005-06.

2.

At the time of hearing neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application on behalf of assessee though notice of hearing sent to assessee VHCL Inds. Ltd. v. ACIT,Cir-5 Kol. Page 2 through RPAD. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (I) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.), Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukjirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. CIT 296 ITR 495 (P & H) and the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjee & another 296 ITR 495 (SC), laying down proposition that a litigant has not only to file an appeal but has to prosecute the same diligently and on failure to so prosecute the appeal can be dismissed for non prosecution, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution.

3.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open court 05/07/2016 (�या�यक सद�य) (लेखा सद�य) (N.V.Vasudevan) (Waseem Ahmed) (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata, *Dkp �दनांकः- 05/07/2016 कोलकाता । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-VHCL Industries Ltd. B/4, Unique House, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 099 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ACIT, Circle-5, Aayakar Bhwan, P-7, Chowringhee Sq. Kol-69 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →