M/S. PAWAN HARDCOKE INDUSTRIES,BURDWAN vs. J.C.I.T, RANGE-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 436/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2016AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear or provide reasons for absence, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their counsel appeared. No adjournment petition was filed, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear 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, “A” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]

Date of Hearing : 12.05.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11.12.2012 of CIT(A)- Durgapur relating to AY 2008-09.

2.

The appeal was originally listed for hearing on 16.03.2016. On the said date at the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee the case was adjourned to 12.05.2016. Today when the matter was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 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 :- “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. :Pawan Hardcoke Industries A.Yr.2008-09 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 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 12.05.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →