Pushpaja Chandran, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 28(1),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 636/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4886 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAVID Z CHOWNGTHU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI WASE EM AHMED, AM] I.T.A NO. 636/KOL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-0 7 PUSHPAJA CHANDRAN -VS.- I.T.O., WARD-28 (1), KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AFCPC5383D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : DAVID Z.CHOWNGTHU, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.03.2016. PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2012 OF CIT(A)- XXXIII, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2006-07. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2015 AND 14.01.2016. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUI NG NOTICE BY RPAD. AGAIN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 15.03.2016. TH E NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 15.01.2016 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. BUT THE NOTICE RETUR NED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AS LEFT. HOWEVER NO ONE W AS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NEITHER AN ADJOURNMENT PETI TION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED T O PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED 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 : 2 ITA NO.636/KOL/2013 PUSHPAJA CHANDRAN A.YR.2006-07 2 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 : 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 15.03.2016. SD/- SD/- [WASEEM AHMED] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15.03.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.PUSHPAJA CHANDRAN, 49/94, PRINCE GULAM MD.SHAH RO AD, KOLKATA-700033. 2. ITO, WARD-28(1), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA 4. CIT-XVIII, KO LKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 3 ITA NO.636/KOL/2013 PUSHPAJA CHANDRAN A.YR.2006-07 3