Subrata Mukherjee , Hooghly V. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Hooghly , Hooghly

ITA 1534/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2040 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM] I.T.A NO. 1534/KOL/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-0 6 SUBRATA MUKHERJEE . VS- ITO, WARD-2(2), HOOGHLY [PAN: AGXPM 6680 R] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATA, (H EREINAFTER THE LD. CIT (A)), DT. 25.04.2018, PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. TODAY WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR AN ADJO URNMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE. IT APPEARS T HAT THE ASSESSEE 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 I FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 2 ITA NO.1534/KOL/2018 SUBRATA MUKHERJEE A.YR .2005-06 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARJEE AND ANO THER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSH IPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION O F THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBOD Y REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BAS IS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMIT TED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. I OBSERVE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON JUST CAUSE IT WILL BE DECIDE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.11.2018 SD/- [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 16.11.2018 SB, SR. PS 3 ITA NO.1534/KOL/2018 SUBRATA MUKHERJEE A.YR .2005-06 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SUBRATA MUKHERJEE, C/O, S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEVEM BROTHERS LODGE, P.O.- BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY P IN-712105. 2. ITO, WARD-2(2), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOOGHLY , G.T. ROAD, KHADIAN MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-71210 1. 3..C.I.T.(A)- , KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT , KOLKATA BENCHES