Sri Dibyendu Das, Kolkata V. JCIT, RG-39, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 910/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0734 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM] I.T.A NO.910/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-0 5 SRI DIBYENDU DAS -VS.- J.C.I.T, RANGE-39 KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN :ADLPD3450H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : U.DASGUPTA, ADDL.CIT (D R) DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12.2017. ORDER PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2015 OF CIT(A)- II, KOLKATA, RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2.THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 18.12. 2017. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 05.09.2017 TO THE 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 HEARING. NEITHER AN ADJ OURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE. IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO T 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 DECISI ONS :- 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.910/KOL/2015 SRI DIBYENDU DAS A.YR.2004-05 2 3. 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 THE 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. 4. 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 THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NO R ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF I NHERENT 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. 5. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO M OVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANC E ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18.12.2017. SD/- SD/- [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] [DR. A. L. SAINI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18.12.2017 [ DKP*PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI DIBYENDU DAS, 119, B.B. GANGULY STREET, KOLKAT A-12 2. J.C.I.T, RANGE-39, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, PODDER COUR T,KOLKATA-001 3. CIT(A)-II, KOLKATA 4. CIT-IV, KOLKATA. 5. ADDL CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DD O ITAT, KOLK ATA 3 ITA NO.910/KOL/2015 SRI DIBYENDU DAS A.YR.2004-05 3