CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461Supreme Court of India1997#19 most cited

What is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another authority for?

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

1,656

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya · 118 ITR 461 · appeal · pursuing appeal · effectively pursuing appeal · filing appeal · assistance from assessee · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · section 250(6)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 144Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 250(6)speaking ordersection 25opportunity of being heardsection 250condonation of delaysection 69aappeal before the tribunalsection 142(1)section 144section 148section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

M/S. Veepee Plastics Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 13(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1200/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1200/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Veepee Plastics Pvt. Ltd., 3/13, Vaswani Kunj, Sadhu Vaswani Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacv6271B Vs.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)

…ing the appeal of assessee in limine by applying the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 10 CTR 354 : (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and not deciding the issue on merits. 4. I find merit in the plea raised by the assessee where the CIT(A) has decided the issue ex-parte the assessee. On perusal of order of CIT(A), it is apparent that the appeal of assessee was dismissed for non appearance but the CIT(A) has failed to discuss the issue on merits and has dismissed the appea…

Sh. Swati Pawa, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3098/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(c)

…can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court’s decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that Page 11 of 16 Fit for Publication ITA No.- 3098/Del/2016. (AM) (JM) Swati Pawa. there has been an under-assessment,…

Shri Sandeep Chona, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 1266/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 Sandeep Chona, Vs. Ito, 9/54, Basement Vikram Vihar, Ward-33(4), Lajpat Nagar Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aevpc3102N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th October, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Despite Service Of Notice, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Petition Seeking Adjournment Of The Case Was Filed. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Him. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned Below, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution:- 1. Cit Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 Itr 461. 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 Itd 320 (Del.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

…the part of the assessee shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal field by him. Therefore, following the decisions mentioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the as…

Shri Bhupinderjit Singh Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 3573/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Bhupinderjit Singh Sawhney, Vs. Ito, C/O Prem Amar & Company, Cas, Ward-26(2), 69, Dda Flats, Jwala Heri, New Delhi. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Pan: Aaxps2112A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Was Being Fixed For Hearing On A Number Of Times & Was Last Fixed On 31St October, 2018. Since None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On That Date, Therefore, Notice Was Issued Fixing The Date Of Hearing For Today I.E., On 31.01.2019. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Him. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned Below, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution:- 1. Cit Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 Itr 461. 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 Itd 320 (Del.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

…the part of the assessee shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal field by him. Therefore, following the decisions mentioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the as…

Hari Krishna Pampatti, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1139/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanshri Hari Krishna Pampatti Vs Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward 3(4) Pan:Abtpp3961H Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : N O N E For Revenue : Shri A.C. Rout, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad, Dated 16.02.2018. 2. We Notice That This Appeal Is Coming Up For Hearing Since 16.11.2018 & When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing On 11.01.2019 Also, We Notice That None Appeared For The Assessee Inspite Of Issuance Of The Notice For Hearing. Therefore, It Is Presumed That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Proceed With The Appeal.

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A.C. Rout, DR

…none appeared for the assessee inspite of issuance of the notice for hearing. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested to proceed with the appeal. 3. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhttachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 that appeal does not Page 1 of 2 ITA No 1139 of 2018 Hari Krishna Pampatti Karimnagar mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as held by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the ca…

Shri Jitendra B. Rathod, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1996/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1996/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Jitendra B. Rathod, Vs. ACIT, A-8, Shreeji Duplex, Circle – 2(1), GIDC Road, Bh. Gajanan Vadodara. Park, Nr. Ambica Darshan Manjalpur, Vadodara – 390 011 [PAN No. ACCPR 1489 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : --None-- Respondent by : Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 28/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement 30/01/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the asse…

Paramsukh Properties Private Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. ACIT, Circle - 15(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 605/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the 2 Paramsukh Properties Pvt. Ltd, AY:2013-14 assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38…

Shri Arvind Sukhani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1849/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the 2 Arvind sukhani, AY:2014-15 assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del),…

M/S. Juice World Snacks Bar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Pun

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 823/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.823/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)

…ing the appeal of assessee in limine by applying the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 10 CTR 354 : (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and not deciding the issue on merits. 5. I find merit in the plea raised by the assessee by way of additional ground of appeal. On perusal of order of CIT(A), it is apparent that the appeal of assessee was dismissed for non appearance but the CIT(A) has failed to discuss the issue on merits and has dismissed the appeal in limine applying th…

Sh. Sanjay Malhotra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 4932/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Malhotra, Vs. Dcit, I-107A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi Central Circle-8, New Delhi Pan :Agdpm8800D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

…Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 6. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 7. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at libert…

Dr. Ajit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2916/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidr. Ajit Gupta, Vs. Acit, C/O. Park Hospital, Circle-61(1), 12, Meera Enclave, Near New Delhi Keshopur Depot, Outer Ringh Road, New Delhi Pan: Aahpg3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

…rested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “if…

Yograj Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 5340/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Yograj Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Acit, B-63, Pachimi Marg, Vasant Circle-18(1), New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan :Aaacy1898B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri S.S. Rana, Cit(Dr)

…Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 6. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 7. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at libert…

M/S. Tractor Spares Company, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1036/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 271(1)(c)

…upon the assessee, however, no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss all the appeals of…

M/S. Nu Tek India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 2508/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nu Tek India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O- Suman Jeet Agarwal & Circle-18(2), New Delhi Co., Cas, Barahkhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacn2270L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

…Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 6. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 3 7. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at lib…

Sub Registrar, Unnao vs. Director of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 86/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor**

…ce upon the following case laws: - *1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del)* - *2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.)* - *3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H)* - *4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC)* - 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, get it revived by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance. - 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. **Order pronounced in the open court on 18/01/20…

Kalawati Devi Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1502/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, 2 Kalawati Devi Shaw, AY:2014-15 relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (D…

Sona Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-5(4), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Us. Even The Hearing Fixed On 07.08.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)

…see is not interested in pursuing the appeal and the instant appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 4. In our above view, we get support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 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.” 5. Our view further finds support from the following decisions also :- i) CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs.CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) 6. Resp…

M/S S.F.Overseas (P) Ltd, Hooghly vs. I.T.O WD - 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan 2 ITA No.1144-1145/Kol/2013 M/s. S.F. Overseas (P) Ltd., AYs-…

M/S S.F.Overseas (P) Ltd, Hooghly vs. I.T.O WD - 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1144/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan 2 ITA No.1144-1145/Kol/2013 M/s. S.F. Overseas (P) Ltd., AYs-…

M/S Bmk Sewa Trust, Panipat vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 6833/DEL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: Nil Bmk Sewa Trust, Vs. Cit(E),Chandigarh Gt Road, Panipat Pan :Aactb5226H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr

Section 12A

…Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 6. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 7. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at libert…