HEMALATA BHAIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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.

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.

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

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