Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata

Neena Choudhury, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward 23(2)/ Hoogly, Hooghly on 22 June, 2018

                   आयकर अपील
य अधीकरण,  यायपीठ - "D" कोलकाता,
        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH: KOLKATA
       (सम )Before  ी ऐ. ट . वक
,  यायीक सद य एवं/and  ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद य)
                [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM]


                                  I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2017
                                Assessment Years: 2009-10

Ms. Neena Choudhury                         Vs.   Income-tax Officer, Wd-23(2), Hooghly.
(PAN:AKXPC6963D)
Appellant                                         Respondent


     Date of Hearing                   20.06.2018
     Date of Pronouncement             22.06.2018
     For the Appellant                 None
     For the Respondent                Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT

                                   ORDER

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 24.10.2016 for assessment year 2009-10.

2. At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. On 26.02.2018 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 18.04.2018 and notice was issued by RPAD. On 18.04.2018 hearing was adjourned to 20.06.2018 at the request of the assessee. On 20.06.2018, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance.

Ms. Neena Choudhury, AY 2009-10

3. We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then it is at liberty to do so for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law.

4. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2018.

     Sd/-                                                              Sd/-
 (M. Balaganesh)                                                (Aby. T. Varkey)
Accountant Member                                                Judicial Member

                            Dated :22nd June, 2018
JD(Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. Appellant - Ms. Neena Choudhury, Sukanto Sarani, 2nd floor, Hind Motor, Hooghly-712233.

2 Respondent - ITO, Ward-23(2), Hooghly.

3. The CIT(A) - 6, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

4. CIT , Kolkata

5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail) /True Copy, By order, Sr. Pvt. Secretary 2