ABK AOTS DOSOKAI TAMILNADU CENTRE,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1592/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 November 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 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. Despite proper service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on any of the scheduled dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal.

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: 15.11.2017Pronounced: 27.11.2017

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) 17, Chennai dated 28.02.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The appeal of the assessee was posted for hearing on 28.08.2017 by service of notice [RPAD on record]. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the Bench adjourned the hearing of the appeal to 15.11.2017 and directed the Registry to serve notice through RPAD. Despite service of notice [RPAD on record], when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 15.11.2017, 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 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 27th November, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →