Bhanu Prakash Jain, Howrah v. ITO, WD-34(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 975/KOL/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 97523514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ACFPJ9207K
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 975/KOL/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Bhanu Prakash Jain, Howrah
Respondent ITO, WD-34(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 09-05-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN JM & DR. A.L.SAINI AM ITA NO.975/KOL/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) BHANU PRAKASH JAIN 10/1 BECHARAM CHOUDHURY LANE HOWRAH-711101 W.B VS. I.T.O WARD - 34(1 ) KOLKATA AAYAKAR BHAWAN PURBA ROOM NO.709 110 SHANTIPALLY KOLKATA 700107. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ACFPJ 9207 K ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 27/11/2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/11/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10 KOLKATA DATED 26.02.2016. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 27.11.2017 AND FOR THIS ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED. TODAY I.E. ON 27.11.2017 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL; HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (1) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. (2) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 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 MADE FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO BHANU PRAKASH JAIN ITA NO.975/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2011-12 2 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. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR 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 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 MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27/11/2017. SD/ - ( N. V. VASUDEVAN) SD/ - (DR. A. L. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; DATED: 27/11/2017 RS(SPS) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT- BHANU PRAKASH JAIN 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- I.T.O WARD-34(1) KOLKATA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) KOLKATA. 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT KOLKATA 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O I.T.A.T KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA .