HEMALATA BHAIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3272/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 November 2017AY 2006-073 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, considering the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the appeals in limine. This decision was based on precedents from other High Courts and ITAT benches.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT for two consecutive hearing dates and also failed to file a condonation petition for a time-barred appeal. The assessee had previously requested an adjournment due to their auditor being busy.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to pursue the appeal. The appeal was also barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 144,Section 147

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Hearing: 02.11.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 13, Chennai dated 30.09.2016 & 23.02.2016 in & 38/CIT(A)-13/2007-08 for the assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively, both passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s 144 & 147 of the Act.

2.

In these appeals, notice for hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Card intimating the assessee that the appeal is fixed for hearing on 01.11.2017. However, the assessee has sent a letter dated 27.10.2017, requesting for adjournment stating that she could not collect certain particulars because her auditor was busy in filing returns. Hence, on 01.11.2017, the case was adjourned as per the request of the assessee and posted for hearing on 02.11.2017 because the assessee has not explained the relevance of the details sought from her auditor with respect to the appeals. However, on 02.11.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Further the appeal in of 2016 is barred by limitation by thirty days and the assessee has not filed condonation petition.

3.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed before this Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd November, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →