NIRMALA DEVI GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-48(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 129/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 January 2016AY 2008-20093 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 the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear and no adjournment was sought. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The notice for the hearing was sent to the assessee's registered address but returned unserved as 'Not known'. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment request was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and the notice is returned unserved.

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, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ]

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.11.2013 of CIT(A)- XXX, Kolkata, relating to AY 2008-09.

2.

This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 13.01.2016. The notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by registered post with AD on 28.12.2015 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 “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. 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 open Court on 13.01.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →