Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8048 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
9 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
06-11-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
19-01-2012
Judgement Text
, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA [ () )) ) , , , , . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . , , , , $% ] ]] ] [BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SRI C. D. RAO, AM ] ' / I.T.A NO. 111/KOL/2012 () *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ABHIJIT GHOSH -VS.- A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA [PAN : AEJPG 9086 M] KOLKATA [ -. /APPELLANT ] [ /0-./ RESPONDENT ] -. / FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE /0-. / FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI K.N.JANA, JCIT,S R.DR 1(2 3 #% /DATE OF HEARING : 06.11.2012. 4* 3 #% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2012. $5 /ORDER , , , , PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 14.11.2011 OF CIT-(A)-XIX, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, N O ONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF INSTITUTION I.E. 19.01.2012 THE DATE OF HEARING WAS INDICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AS 30.05.2012 AND THE SAID DATE WAS NOTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID DATE NO ONE WAS PRESENT AS SUCH THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.11.2012. NOTI CE WAS ISSUED BY RPAD ON 05.07.2012. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A.D HAS RETURNED SH OWING THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THIS FACT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED.. IN THE AFORE MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND ITA NO.111/KOL/2012 2 CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO A LTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320. THE SAID VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRA HOLKAR VS C.W.T . REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480. WE HASTEN TO ADD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS SO ADVISED AN D MOVES A PETITION AS PER RULES PRAYING FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR REMAINING ABSENT BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DATES OF HEARING THEN THE BENCH HEARING THE PETITION MAY RECALL THE ORDER AND FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE IF SO D EEMED FIT ON FACTS ON LAW. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. $5 %1$ 6 1( 7 8 #% ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.11.2012. SD/- SD/- [ .'#., , , , $% ] [ , ] [ C. D. RAO ] [ DIVA SINGH ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (#%) DATED : 06.11.2012. [RG (9: ; /.PS] $5 3 /< =$<*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ABHIJIT GHOSH,66C/2, SUREN SARKAR ROAD, KOLKATA-700 010. 2 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA 3. CIT KOLKATA 4. CIT (A)-XIX, KOLKATA 5. CIT DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA [0< // TRUE COPY] $5(1/ BY ORDER, : /ASSTT REGISTRAR ITA NO.111/KOL/2012 3
