Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6369 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-06-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
09-06-2017
Judgement Text
, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1382 / KOL / 20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 SRI NIKHIL CHANDRA MITRA 34, CHAULPATTY ROAD, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA-59 [ PAN NO.AHXPM 9169 L ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-49, UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, ULTADANGA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MANICKTALA CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA-54 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI A. BHATTACHERJEE, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 12-06-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-06-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-15, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 24.04.2017, IN CASE NO.64/CIT(A)-15/15-16/DCIT,CIR-49/KOL, IN PROC EEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. TODAY WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FI ND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ' 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARJEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: ' THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEA L BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT.' ITA NO.1382/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 12-13 SRI NIKHIL CHANDRA MITRA VS. DCIT CIR-49, KOL. PAGE 2 3. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: ' IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MA DE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAP ER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE.' 4. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) L TD .38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THE RE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 5. WE OBSERVE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO F ILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON JUST CAUSE IT WILL BE DECIDE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 15/ 06/2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (M.BALAGANESH) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 15 / 06 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SRI NIKHIL CH. MITRA, 34, CHAULPATTY ROA D, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA-59 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIR-49, UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, ULTADA NGA INCOME TAX OFFICE MANICKTALA CIV IC CENTRE, KOLKATA-54 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,
