CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

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 :

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE 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…

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A. L.SAINI, AM Sandeep Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-46(4), Kolkata 70, Salkia School Road, Bandhaghat, 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata – 1. Howrah – 711106. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AZSPS 7096 J (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 2010-11…

Purna Chand Maity, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 283/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Purna Chand Maity...............................…………………………...................................Appellant Prop. Of Mecel Construction, Sherpur, Telengabarh, Contai, Purba Medinipur – 721 401. [Pan: Aeypm 0604 G] Ito, Ward 27(2), Haldia...................…………………………………………………..Respondent Basudevpur, Khanjan Chak Purba Medinipur – 721 602. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 31, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 31, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 7, Kolkata Dated 31.11.2016. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In This Case Was Initially Fixed For Hearing On 27.03.2018. None However Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Said Date & Hearing Therefore Was Adjourned To 31.05.2018 With The Direction To The Registry To Send The Notice Of The Said Hearing By Rpad To The Assessee At The Address Given In The Appeal Memo. On 31.05.2018, None However Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Seeking Adjournment Has Been Filed. This Non-Compliant Attitude Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Seriously Interested In Prosecuting This Appeal Filed Before The Tribunal.

…This principle is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31st May…

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.”

…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 po…

M/S. Inland Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 13(2), Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 522/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Inland Sales Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………….........................Appellant C/O. Paras Kochar, 10, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700 072. [Pan: Aacci 5399 D] Ito, Ward 13(2), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri R.P. Nag, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 5, Kolkata Dated 09.12.2016. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In This Case Was Initially Fixed For Hearing On 04.04.2018. The Assessee However Sought Adjournment On The Said Date & Accordingly The Hearing Was Adjourned To 21.05.2018. On 21.05.2018, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In Order To Give One More Opportunity To The Assessee, The Hearing Was Adjourned To 30.05.2018 With The Direction To The Registry To Send The Notice Of The Said Hearing By Rpad To The Assessee At The Address Given In The Appeal Memo. On 30.05.2018, None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Seeking

…This principle is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30th May…

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)

…en 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 appeal but has not taken care to avail of the opportunity of being heard. Hence, I have no option but to decide the appeal ex parte. In view of the absence of the appellant on the…

Partho Guha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

…s principle is embodied in the well known dictum - “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT –vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 28, 2018. (A.T. Var…

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]

…eans 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 assessee for non-appearance. 2 IFB Industries Limited., AY- 2010-11 3. We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then it is at liberty to do so for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law. 4. In the result, appeal of assesse…