KAMAL NAVA SARKAR,S/O-SANKAR NATH SARKAR,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD-2, MALDA, MALDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1069/KOL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 March 2016AY 2006-072 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 held that a litigant must prosecute their appeal diligently. Since the assessee failed to do so, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. However, the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings and did not file any adjournment applications. This indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution. Whether the assessee had shown due diligence in pursuing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145(3),Section 143(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 “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri in appeal No.292/MLD/CIT(A)/JAL/08-09 dated 05.09.2011. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-2, Range, Malda u/s 145(3)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 01.12.2008 for assessment year 2006-07.

2.

At the time of hearing today, none appeared on assessee behalf and filed any adjournment application. Prior to that on 26.08.2015 and 27.10.2015 then none appeared on behalf of assessee and filed any adjournment Kamal N Sarkar v. ITO Wd-2 MLD. Page 2 application. Hence, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the 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 →