CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

M/S. Clarity Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. TRO-2, Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am M/S. Clarity Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer – 2 71, Canning Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – Room No.3/70, Aayakar Bhawan, P- 1. 7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc 1748 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri S. M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata Dated 20.03.2017. 2. Notice Of Hearing Of This Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Assessee In Column No.10 Of Form No.36. The Said Notice Has Not Been Returned Unserved. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 04.06.2018. Today I.E. On 04.06.2018 When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Request For Adjournment Was Made. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting This 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 & 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 :

…ot interested in prosecuting this 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 orde…

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-46(4), Kolkata

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

…t interested in prosecuting this 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 orde…

Ghanshyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am M/S. Ghanshyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata 168B, Cotton Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 3, Government Place (West), 700 007. Kolkata – 700 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcg 0634 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata Dated 29.08.2016. 2. Notice Of Hearing Of This Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Assessee In Column No.10 Of Form No.36. The Said Notice Has Not Been Returned Unserved. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 31.05.2018. Today I.E. On 31.05.2018 When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Request For Adjournment Was Made. The Said Appeal Was Also Listed For Hearing On 30.05.2018 But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting This 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 & 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.”

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM M/s. Ghanshyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata 168B, Cotton Street, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 3, Government Place (West), 700 007. Kolkata – 700 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCG 0634 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 31/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertain…

M/S Swagatam Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(2), Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.943/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Swagatam Financial Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2),Kolkata Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, 4Th Floor, Room Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. No.409 & 411, Kolkata – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aalcs 3078 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…9 granting a hearing on 13.10.2016. However, the appellant did not attend on that date. Hence, it is clear that the appellant has nothing further to say in the matter. 2. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee 118 ITR 461 that preferring appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. This principle has also been followed in CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 480 (MP). Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. The appellant has filed the…

Ifb Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

…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, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the ass…

Reasonable Vincom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. Am] I.T.A No. 739/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Reasonable Vincom Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aafcr0442R (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri G. Hangshing, Cit, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2018. Order Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, Am

…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…

Wellbuild Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. Am] I.T.A No. 737/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Wellbuild Vintrade Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aabcw 0890N (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2018. Order Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, Am

…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…

Smt Saryu Rajnikant Kampani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -31(4), Kol, Kolkata

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

Bench: Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. Am] I.T.A No. 1559/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Saryu Rajnikant Kampani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-3(4), Pan: Afopk4154Q Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2018. Order Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, Am

…he 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 :- 2 Smt. Saryu Rajnikant Kampani “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…

M/S Jld Cement Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.5(2), Kolkata

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

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

…6 granting a hearing on 13.10.2016. However, the appellant did not attend on that date. Hence, it is clear that the appellant has nothing further to say in the matter. 2. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee 118 ITR 461 that preferring appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. This principle has also been followed in CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 480 (MP). Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. The appellant has filed the…