M/s. Raj Enterprises, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1613/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4070 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRABAL C HOUDHURY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAI NI, AM ./ ITA NO.1613/KOL/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-2005) M/S RAJ ENTERPRISES, C/O ARVIND AGARWAL, 8,B R B BASU ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 VS. ITO WARD-36 (1), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAGFR 2543 D ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI PRABAL CHOUDHURY, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 15/12/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/12/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN O RDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.212/CIT(A)-XX/WD.-36(1)/2007-08/KOL, DATED 05.03 .2014, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHOR T THE ACT), DATED 11.12.2006. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 15.12 .2016. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 02.11.2016 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NEITHER AN ADJOURNMENT PETITIO N WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE, IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO T INTERESTED TO ITA NO.1613/14 M/S RAJ ENTERPRISES 2 PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E 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 AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS 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 INS TANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPAR ATION 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 MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE D ATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATIO N 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 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21/ 12/2016. SD/ - (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) SD/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 21/12/2016 & ()* /PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT-M/S RAJ ENTERPRISE, KOLKATA 2. / THE RESPONDENT.-ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA ITA NO.1613/14 M/S RAJ ENTERPRISES 3 / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) & ' , / ITAT, 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 56 7 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 7 9 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//