What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following precedent, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee was informed that they could file a restoration petition if they had valid grounds for non-appearance.

The assessee's appeal was called for hearing multiple times, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. Despite previous adjournments and a registered notice being served, the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute their appeal before the Tribunal.

E.Sankaran vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

आदेश / O R D E R

When the appeal was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee. Vakalat of M/s. Varadarajan & Co, Chartered Accountants, is on record. The said firm requested adjournments twice, which were granted. However, on 06.07.2017 and 12.09.2017 when the appeal was taken up for hearing, nobody

ITA No. 1246/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to the assessee fixing the appeal for hearing today. The said notice was received by the assessee and acknowledgment card is on record. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the case. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. However, assessee if it desires so, can file a petition seeking restoration of the appeal, if it has valid grounds for not entering appearance.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 28th day of September, 2017, at Chennai.

E.SANKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments