LEELADHAR RUNGTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCR 11(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2234/CHNY/2017Status: PendingITAT Chennai05 December 2017AY 2014-152 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 relevant rules and precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was an adjournment filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

ITAT Rules 19(2)

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: 04.12.2017Pronounced: 05.12.2017

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) 13, Chennai dated 18.07.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The appeal of the assessee was posted for hearing on 04.12.2017 by service of notice [RPAD on record]. 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 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 5th December, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →