DINESH JAMUNADAS MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD -(34)3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1826/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 March 2016AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was listed for hearing. Despite proper notice, the assessee neither appeared nor filed an adjournment petition. The postal authorities returned the notice with the remark 'No such company or Floor No. hence not known'.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing despite proper notice.

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, “B” BENCH : KOLKATA

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

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01.03.2013 of CIT(A)- XX, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10.

2.

This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 02.03.2016. The notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by registered post with AD on 04.02.2016 to the address given by the assessee in column no.10 of Form No.36. But the notice returned unserved with the remark by the postal authorities as “No such company or Floor No. hence not known”. However no one was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. 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.”

2 Dinesh Jamunadas Mehta A.Yr.2009-10 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 02.03.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →