SANGEETHA KESAV MALKHEDE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai dated 28.11.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.

The appeal of the assessee was posted for hearing on 10.04.2017, despite service of notice [AD on record], none appeared on behalf of the assessee and at the request of the ld. AR, the hearing of the appeal is adjourned to 08.06.2017, 09.08.2017 and 26.10.2017. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 26.10.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and accordingly, the Bench directed the Registry to issue notice by RPAD by posting the appeal for hearing on 04.01.2018. Despite service of notice [RPAD on record], none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 04.01.2018. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Therefore, having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the 18th January, 2018 at Chennai.