Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, considered the assessee’s appeal against the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal was initially listed for hearing on 10.08.2017, and notice of hearing was issued to the address mentioned in Form No. 36. As no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, the matter was adjourned to 09.10.2017. Although notice of hearing had been sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), the Bench did not function on that date, and the appeal was adjourned to 27.11.2017. On 27.11.2017, none appeared for the assessee, following which the matter was adjourned to 02.01.2018. Fresh notice was again issued by RPAD to the address provided in Form No. 36. On the adjourned date also, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the RPAD notice had not been returned unserved and concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
The Tribunal relied upon the decisions in CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharjee and another, Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT, and Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd. in support of the principle that filing an appeal alone is insufficient and that an appeal must be effectively pursued. It also noted that where a party fails to appear or take necessary steps for hearing, the appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution.
