Dinesh Jamunadas Mehta, Kolkata V. I.T.O, Wd -(34)3, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1826/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4967 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI WASE EM AHMED, AM] I.T.A NO. 1826/KOL/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-1 0 DINESH JAMUNADAS MEHTA -VS.- I.T.O., WAR D-34(3), KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AIKP M2956M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SALLONG YADEN, ADDL.CIT ,DR. DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.03.2016. ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2013 OF CIT(A)- XX, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2009-10. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 02.03 .2016. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 04.02.2016 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 NO SUCH COMPAN Y OR FLOOR NO. HENCE NOT KNOWN. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NEITHER AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 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 THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2 ITA NO.1826/KOL/2013 DINESH JAMUNADAS MEHTA A.YR.2009-10 2 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 : 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 02.03.2016. SD/- SD/- [WASEEM AHMED] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 02.03.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.DINESH JAMUNADAS MEHTA, 10, PORTUGESE CHURCH STRE ET, KOLKATA-700001. 2. ITO, WARD-34(3), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XX KOLKATA 4. CIT-XII, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 3 ITA NO.1826/KOL/2013 DINESH JAMUNADAS MEHTA A.YR.2009-10 3