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, “B” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM]
ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
30.12.2010 of CIT(A)-Central-III, Kolkata, relating to AY 2004-05. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.07.2008 which was confirmed by CIT(A). is also an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.12.2010 of CIT(A)-Central-III, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2006-07.
2. These appeals were listed for hearing as many as 30 different occasions. In fact when the appeals were listed for hearing on 23.03.2016 the request for adjournment was granted by the Bench on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter the appeals were listed for hearing on 05.05.2016 and on that date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeals were adjourned to 31.05.2016 and notice was directed to be served on the assessee by RPAD. The notice issued by the registry was duly served on the assessee. When the appeals were called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee. It 2 & 286/Kol/2011 Malanpur Steel Ltd. A.Yrs.2004-05 & 2006-07 means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeals. Hence the appeals 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.”
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 appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the Court on 01.06.2016.