SHIVA DISTILERIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 111/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 December 2017AY 2012-132 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 appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were adjourned multiple times at their request. On the final hearing date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was an adjournment petition filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and prosecute the case.

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: 07.12.2017Pronounced: 27.12.2017

O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore both dated 31.10.2016 relevant to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

The appeals of the assessee were posted for hearing initially on 06.03.2017 by service of notice. At the request of the ld. AR, the hearings of the appeals have been adjourned from 06.03.2017 to 05.12.2017. When the appeals were taken up for hearing on 05.12.2017, again, at the request of the ld. AR, the hearing was adjourned to 07.12.2017 and by endorsing in the order sheet, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has noted the date of hearing. However, when the appeals were taken up for hearing on 07.12.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals.

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 appeals of the assessee are dismissed for want of prosecution.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. 4. Order pronounced on the 27th December, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →