M.N.KANNAN,KRISHNAGIRI vs. DCIT, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1118/CHNY/2017Status: PendingITAT Chennai27 September 2017AY 2011-122 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. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing multiple times. Notices sent to the assessee were returned unserved with the remark 'No such addressee available'. The assessee also did not provide any change of address.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the failure of the assessee to appear for hearings and the unserved notices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.

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 Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy

Hearing: 27.09.2017Pronounced: 27.09.2017

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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem dated 30.03.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The appeal was initially posted for hearing on 20.07.2017 and notice issued was duly served on the assessee [AD on record]. Since Bench could not function on that day, the next hearing was fixed on 27.09.2017 and notice was accordingly issued to the assessee. The said notice was received back unserved with remark of the postal authorities that “No such addressee available”. The assessee has also not filed any change of address. 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 27th September, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →