SRI DEBAYAN BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 639/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 March 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, held that an appeal must be diligently prosecuted. Since the assessee failed to do so, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. Despite notices being sent via registered post, the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or diligently pursue the appeal.

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(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 “C” KOLKATA

Before: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata dated 03.01.2013. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Last hearing i.e. on 17.11.2015 none appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed any adjournment application though notice of hearing sent to Sh Debayan Bhattacharya v. ACIT, Cir-50 Kol. Page 2 assessee through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). Today at the time of hearing either appeared or filed any adjournment application on behalf of assessee. Hence, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limini. 3. Order pronounced in the open court 17/03/2016 (N.V.Vasudevan) (Waseem Ahmed) (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata, *Dkp �दनांकः- 17/03/2016 कोलकाता । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Sri Debayan Bhattacharya, DB-29, B-4, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kol-64 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ACIT Cir-50, Uttarapana Complex, Maniktala, Civic Centre, 2nd Floor, Room No 6, Kolkata-700 054 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता ।

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →