PAUL RATHNAKUMAR E,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2362/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 December 2017AY 2009-20103 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the inability to serve notice on the assessee. However, the assessee can apply for recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing. The notice sent to the assessee's last known address was returned by postal authorities with the endorsement 'No such person'. The Tribunal could not trace the correct address.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee cannot be served due to an incorrect address. The procedure for handling such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 11.12.2017Pronounced: 11.12.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, dated 31.03.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The notice of hearing was issued to the assessee by RPAD to the address given by the assessee at col.No.10 of Form 36.

However, the postal authorities returned the same with an endorsement “No such person”. This Tribunal has no machinery to trace out the correct address of the assessee to service notice.

Whenever there is a change of address, it is for the assessee to inform the Registry so that the notice can be sent to the correct address. In the absence of any details regarding address of the assessee before this Tribunal, it is very difficult to serve the notice.

One of the reasons for not intimating the registry about change of address, presumably that the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3.

Whatever may be the reason, by keeping the proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, in mind, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, it is made clear that it is open to the assessee to move to this Tribunal for recall of this order provided there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing before this Tribunal on 11.12.2017 when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

4.

With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th December, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →