SANGEETHA KESAV MALKHEDE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 January 2018AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but the assessee or their representative failed to appear on all occasions. Despite repeated notices and adjournments, no representation was made by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy

Hearing: 04.01.2018Pronounced: 18.01.2018

O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →