Karnataka HC dismisses Income Tax appeal due to non-prosecution

Tayana Consult Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

 In the case of Tayana Consult Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, the Karnataka High Court upheld the dismissal of the income tax appeal due to non-prosecution. The appellant’s original counsel, Smt. Sheetal Borkar, filed a memo on November 15, 2023, requesting to retire from the case due to lack of instructions and necessary details from the petitioner. The court granted this request, allowing the counsel to withdraw. The appeal challenged orders from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2005-2006. The ITAT had previously dismissed the appeal, citing the appellant’s disinterest in pursuing the case and referencing precedents from other cases that support dismissal for non-prosecution. Given these circumstances, the Karnataka High Court deemed the appeal infructuous and thus dismissed it, affirming the lower tribunal’s decision.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

1. Smt. Sheetal Borkar, learned counsel for the appellant is represented by Smt. Pooja Sharma, learned counsel.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 15.11.2023 for retirement, which reads as follows:

“The advocate for petitioner on record, humbly states that she is now not pursuing the case on behalf of petitioner, as the petitioner is not giving the instructions to proceed with the case and neither they providing us the details required. Consequently, the advocate for the petitioner hereby declares her withdrawal from the case, submitting a formal retirement memorandum. Additionally, she has no objections to the appellant’s appointment of a different attorney to represent the appellant’s interests in the matter”.

3. Memo is placed on record.

4. Smt. Sheetal Borkar, the learned counsel, is permitted to retire from the case as sought for.

5. It is deemed appropriate to refer the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1609 and 1610/Bang/2014 relating to the assessment year 2007-2008 and 2005-2006. The aforesaid impugned order has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. In the impugned order, it is indicated that:

“Even the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT V. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar V. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution”.

6. In view of the said status of the impugned order rendered by the Tribunal, it is deemed appropriate that this appeal be dismissed as having become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.