Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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 M.Balaganesh, AM & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM ]
Neelkanth Goods (P)LTd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAACN 8631 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21.06.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2016. ORDER
Per M.Balaganesh, AM
This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned CITA in Appeal No. 1164/CIT(A)-XXIV/Set Aside/1(3)/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 against the order of assessment framed for the Asst Year 2005-06 u/s 147/143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 21.06.2016. The notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by registered post with AD on 26.05.2016 to the address given by the assessee in column no.10 of Form No.36. But the notice returned unserved with the remark by the postal authorities as “Addressee Moved”. However no one was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee 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 :-
2 Neelkanth Goods (P)Ltd. A.Yr.2005-06 “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.”
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.”
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Order pronounced in the Court on 01.07.2016.
Sd/- Sd/- [S.S.Viswanethra Ravi] [ M.Balaganesh ] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 01.07.2016. [RG PS] 1.Neelkanth Goods (P)Ltd., 172, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700001.
2. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. .
3. CIT(A)-XXIV, Kolkata 4. CIT-I, Kolkata.
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.