M/S MAITY & CO.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 33,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 283/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 March 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution. This decision was based on the principle that a litigant must prosecute their appeal diligently.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearing dates and did not file any adjournment application. The ITAT noted that the assessee appeared to be uninterested in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings. The diligence required from a litigant in prosecuting an appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 145(3)

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 “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIX, Kolkata dated 07.12.2012. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-33, Kolkata u/s 143(3)/145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.11.2011 for assessment year 2009-10.

2.

At the time of hearing neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application on behalf of assessee though notice of hearing last sent on 11.02.2016 through RPAD. Previous to i.e. on 20.08.2015, 05.10.2015 & M/s Mity & Co. v. DCIT, Cir-33 Kol. Page 2 21.12.2015 assessee was non-appeared also. Hence, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its 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.

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →