Nikhil Seksaria, Kolkata V. ITO, Wd-51(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 314/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4203 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALLONG YADEN ADCIT

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.314/KOL/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010) NIKHIL SEKSARIA, C/O MANISH DOKANIA, 12, MANGO LANE, KOLKATA- 700001 VS. ITO WARD-51(4), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : BEAPS 0039 C ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 23/11/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/11/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN O RDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.119/XXXII/11-12/51(4)/KOL, DATED 12.11.2013, WHI CH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UN DER SECTION.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHORT THE ACT), DATE D 30.12.2011. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 23.11 .2016. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 28.6.2016, 26.07.2016, 01.09.2016 & 9.11.2016 TO TH E 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 HE ARING. NEITHER AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE AB OVE ASSESSEE, IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE AP PEAL. HENCE, THE ITA NO.314/14 NIKHIL SEKSARIA 2 APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING D ECISIONS :- 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 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25/ 11/2016. S D/ - (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) S D/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 25/11/2016 & ()* /PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT-NIKIL SEKSARIA 2. / THE RESPONDENT.-ITO, WARD-51(4), KOLKATA ITA NO.314/14 NIKHIL SEKSARIA 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//