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 367,181 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

Mangala Dnyaneshwar Pathare, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 682/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 54B

…l of assessee relied on the ratio laid down by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ( Del.) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee & ANR (1979) 118 ITR 461. The CIT(A) has decided the issue also on merit by upholding the order of Assessing Officer as the assessee had failed to appear before her. 5. In the first instance, the CIT(A) has erred in applying the ratio laid down by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.(supra.) to dismiss the appeal of assessee. F…

M/S N. K. P. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 536/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2007-2008

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

…e Tribunal fixing the date of hearing on 08.03.2018. It appears from the conduct of the assessee that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing this 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 2 N. K. P. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., AY 2007-08 decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 IT…

J. K. Sons & Co., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

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

ITA 2063/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2063/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. J.K. Sons & Co.…………………………………………………………….…….……......Appellant 1, Mullick Street (Bara Bazar), Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan :Aadfj 3159 L] D.C.I.T Circle 44 Kolkata………...……………………..……..............................Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 2Nd ,2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 2063/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. J.K. Sons & Co.…………………………………………………………….…….……......Appellant 1, Mullick Street (Bara Bazar), Kolkata – 700 007 [PAN :AADFJ 3159 L] D.C.I.T CIRCLE 44 Kolkata………...……………………..……..............................Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 13, 2018 Date of pronouncing the…

M/S Dynametic Overseas (P) Ltd.(Formerly Known As R.Piyarelall International(P) Ltd.), Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT Range 8, Kolkata

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

ITA 2391/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No. 2391/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Dynametic Overseas (P) Ltd. -Vs.- Acit, Range-8, Kolkata (Formerly Known As M/S R. Piyarilall International Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan : Aabcr 3157 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…s 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.Bhattacharjee 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…

Joyful Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 836/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Joyful Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 23A N.S. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 1. Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj 7267 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tiwari, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Joyful Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 23A N.S. Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 1. Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCJ 7267 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri A. K. Tiwari, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 25/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 25/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 201…

M/S Honesty Goods Trader Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 496/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12 M/S Honesty Goods Trader Dcit, Circle-9, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., 42, Hariram P-7, Chowringhee V/S. Goenka Street, 1St Floor, Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-007 [Pan No.Aacch 5757 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A. Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-04-2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 20.12.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

Parijat Agency Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 493/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13 Parijat Agency Pvt Ltd., Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Arun Jain & Ward-5(2), P-7, V/S. Associates, 2B, Grant Lane, Chowringhee Square, 2Nd Floor, Rom No.74, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-700 012 [Pan No.Aaecp 9476 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A. Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-04-2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

Tata Korf Engineering Services Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 1623/KOL/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:1999-20 Tata Korf Engineering Acit, Circle-2(2), बनाम / Services Ltd., Tata Centre, P-7, Chowringhee V/S. 43, Chowringhee Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabct 1387 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A. Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-04-2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 1999-00 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata Dated 11.04.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

Skm Housing Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 812/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Skm Housing Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-13(4), Kolkata 110, Shantipally, 9Th Fllor, 265, G.T. Road, Liluah, Howrah – 711204. R.No.906, Em Bye Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs 5833 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata Dated 02.01.2017. 2. Notice Of Hearing Of This Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Assessee In Form No.36. The Said Notice Has Not Been Returned Unserved. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 24.04.2018. Today I.E. On 24.04.2018 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.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM SKM Housing Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-13(4), Kolkata 110, Shantipally, 9th Fllor, 265, G.T. Road, Liluah, Howrah – 711204. R.No.906, EM Bye Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AALCS 5833 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by t…

Sri Siddhartha Nag, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 50, Kolkata

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

ITA 786/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Sri Siddhartha Nag Vs. Acit, Cir-50, Kolkata Ba-114, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Uttarapan, Manicktala Civic Kolkata – 700 064. Centre, Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abqpn 1709 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Sri Siddhartha Nag Vs. ACIT, Cir-50, Kolkata BA-114, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Uttarapan, Manicktala Civic Kolkata – 700 064. Centre, Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABQPN 1709 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the…

Sh. Imranjit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1504/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Imranjit Singh, Vs. The Pr.Cit-3, Prop. M/S Iris International, Ludhiana. 198-R, Model Town, Ludhiana. Pan: Azvps0911L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

…see is not interested in pursuing the appeal and the instant appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 3. 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.” 4. 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) 5. Resp…

Shivputra Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO (Tech-2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 492/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13 Shivputra Vinimay Pvt. Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Ltd. C/O Arun Jain & (Tech-2), P-7, V/S. Associates 2B, Grant Lane, Chowringhee Square, 2Nd Floor, Room No.74, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-12 [Pan No.Aaqcs 0935 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G.Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

Starrise Suppliers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 491/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13 Starrise Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Arun Jain & Associates Ward-5(1), P-7, V/S. 2B, Grant Lane, 2Nd Floor, Chowringhee Square, Room No.74, Kolkata-12 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaqcs 0935 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G.Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

Subhankar Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 487/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13 Subhankar Vintrade Pvt. Income Tax Officer, बनाम Ltd. C/O Arun Jain & Ward-5(1), P-7, / V/S. Associates 2B, Grant Chowringhee Square, Lane, 2Nd Floor, Room Kolkata-69 No.74, Kolkata-12 [Pan No.Aapcs 4085 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G.Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

Sukhsagar Realbuild Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 486/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13 Sukhsagar Realbuild Income Tax Officer, बनाम Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Ward-5(1), P-7, / V/S. C/O Arun Jain & Chowringhee Square, Associates 2B, Grant Kolkata-69 Lane, 2Nd Floor, Room No.74, Kolkata-12 [Pan No.Aapcs 8279 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-04-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. It Was Also Observed That Assessee Also Failed To Appear Before The Ld. Cit(A) Despite The Notices For Hearing Were Issued Upon The Assessee. Therefore The Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Ex-Parte Order. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of

…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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it…

M/S Maa Bhagwati Rice Mills, Kaithal vs. ACIT, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 707/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…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. 5. 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. 6. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court. (B.…

The Sub Registrar, Solan vs. Director of Income Tax (Cib), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 286/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…n 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. - 5. 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. - 6. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss these appeals for non-prosecution. 7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.Order pronounced in the Open Court.…

The Sub Registrar, Solan vs. Director of Income Tax (Cib), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 285/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…n 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. - 5. 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. - 6. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss these appeals for non-prosecution. 7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.Order pronounced in the Open Court.…

The Sub Registrar, Solan vs. Director of Income Tax (Cib), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 284/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…n 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. - 5. 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. - 6. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss these appeals for non-prosecution. 7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.Order pronounced in the Open Court.…

Pawan Kumar Garg, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation and also for non-prosecution

ITA 525/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Sh. Pawan Kumar Garg, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Prop Pee Gee Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh Almoh Road, Near Amar Gases, Mandi Gobindgarh Pan No. Addpg6433F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…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. 5. 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. 6. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. ITA No.525/Chd/2016- Pawan Kumar Garg, Mandi Gobindgarh 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is di…