DIPAK CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2423/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2016AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's lack of appearance and failure to provide updated address information.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. Notices sent to the assessee's provided address were returned unserved.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and unserved notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]

Hearing: 09.05.2016Pronounced: 09.05.2016

ORDER

Per Shri Balaganesh, AM:

1.

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 190/CIT(A)-XIV/2010-11 dated 31.07.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd-30(2), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 18.11.2010.

2.

None appeared for and on behalf of assessee at the time of hearing of this appeal. At the outset, it is noticed that the notice for hearing on 09.05.2016 was sent through Registered with A/D but the same was returned back unserved with the remark “Not Known”. It is also noticed that the notice was sent at the address provided by the assessee in column 10 of Form No. 36 which is annexed to this file. Information for change of address was also not given by the assessee. Hence, it seems that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as none is present before us at the time of hearing. Hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 3. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. 4. Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (N. V. Vasudevan) (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 9th May, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →