Sajal Roy, Hooghly V. ITO, WD-22(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 727/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4065 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SK Z H TANWEER

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ITA NO.727/KOL/2016 (A.Y: 2010-2011) SAJAL ROY, 265, SARADA PALLY, SECTOR-2, MAKHLA, UTTARPARA, HOOGHLY-712245 VS. ITO WARD-22(2), NOW, ITO WARD-63(1)/KOL, 169, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-13 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AGIPR 3008 D ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SK. Z.H. TANWEER, JCIT, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/12/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/12/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.118/CIT(A)-19/KOL/2014-15, DATED 08.02.2016, WH ICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U NDER SECTION.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHORT THE ACT), D ATED 15.03.2013. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 27.12 .2016. THE NOTICE IN THIS APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 26.10.2016 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED AN APPLICATION DATED 10.11.2016 FOR ADJOURNMENT UPTO 15 DAYS. HOWE VER, TODAY NONE- APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNM ENT APPLICATION IS FILED. IT SEEMS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. ITA NO.727/16 SAJAL ROY 2 HENCE, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM TH E 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. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MO VE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REA SONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27/1 2/2016. S D/ - (A.T.VARKEY) SD/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 27/12/2016 & ()*/PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS ITA NO.727/16 SAJAL ROY 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ' #$% , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT- SAJAL ROY 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 567 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 79 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//