V.MUTHURAMAN, L/H TO M.VAIRAVAN,MADURAI vs. DCIT, MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1142/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 November 2017AY 2009-102 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 want of prosecution as neither the assessee nor their representative appeared on the scheduled date of hearing and no adjournment was sought.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee's counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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 Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 30.11.2017

Shri V. Muthuraman, The Deputy Commissioner of L/H to M. Vairavan, No. 9, Harvey Vs. Income Tax , Nagar, Arasaradi, Madurai 625 016. Non Corporate Circle 3, [PAN:AALPV5908P] Madurai. (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : None ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vijayakumar Punna, St. Counsel सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of hearing : 27.11.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 आदेश /O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai dated 29.03.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

2.

The appeal of the assessee was initially posted for hearing on 13.07.2017 by service of notice [RPAD on record]. At the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 14.09.2017. Again, at the request of the ld. Counsel, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 27.11.2017 and both parties have been informed. Moreover, the ld. Counsel has also endorsed in the order sheet having noted the date of hearing. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 27.11.2017, 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 30th November, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →