M/s. Dien Commercials (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle-11, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 746/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4712 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOUDHUR Y

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 746 - 747 / KOL / 20 17 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2005-06 & 2007-08 M/S DIEN COMMERCIALS (P) LTD., 22B, COCKLER LANE, KOLKATA-700 029 [ PAN NO.AABCD 5770 C ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-11, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,P- 7,CHOWINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA-700 069 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE NONE /BY REVENUE SHRI ROBIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 04-02-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-02-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 005-06 & 2007-08 CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-9 KOLKATAS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 29.03.2016, PASSED IN CASE NO .647-649/CIT(A)-9/CIR- 11/WD/11(4)/2014-15/KOL15-16, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. TODAY WHEN THE CASE(S) WERE CALLED FOR HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURN MENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. IT APPEARS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THESE APPEALS. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FI ND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO.800/KOL/2017 AYS, 05-06 & 07-08 M/S DIEN COMMERCIALS PVT. LTD. VS, DCIT CIR;11/I TO WD-11(4), KOL. PAGE 2 ' 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARJEE 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 APPEA L BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT.' 3. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS 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 MA DE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAP ER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE.' 4. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) L TD .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. THE RE WAS 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 FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 5. WE OBSERVE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO F ILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON JUST CAUSE IT WILL BE DECIDE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 13/ 02/2019 SD/- SD/- ( ) (( ) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S )- 13 / 02 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-M/S DIEN COMMERCIALS (P) LTD. 22B, COCKLER LANE, KOLKATA-29 2. /REVENUE-DCIT CIR-11/ITO WD-11(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATAA-69 3. 4 5 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 5- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 8 ((4, 4, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. = / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / 4,