Dussel Dorf De Espana, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 29(4), kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1645/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5036 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, AM & SRI N.V.VA SUDEVAN, JM ] I.T.A NO. 1645/KOL/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-0 6 DUSSEL DORF DE ESPANA -VS.- I.T.O., WARD -29(4), KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AAJFM6599F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.03.2016. ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2013 OF CIT(A)- XVI, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2005-06. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 10.03 .2016. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 09.02.2016 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. BUT THE NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AS LEFT. HOWEVE R NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NEITHER AN A DJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE IT MEANS THAT ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS L IABLE 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 THEIR 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 INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : 2 ITA NO.1645/KOL/2013 DUSSEL DORF DE ESPANA A.YR.2005-06 2 IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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 REF ERENCE. 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 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. THERE W AS 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 FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3 . THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANC E ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10.03.2016. SD/- SD/- [P.M.JAGTAP] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10.03.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. DUSSEL DORF DE ESPANA, 8A, BTROWN FIELD ROW, KOLKATA-700027. 2. ITO, WARD-29 (4), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XVI, KOLKATA 4. CIT-X, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 3 ITA NO.1645/KOL/2013 DUSSEL DORF DE ESPANA A.YR.2005-06 3