What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting its case due to non-appearance. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was called for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

Chanakya Finance Corporation vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH A, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO

For Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by assessee against an order dt 31.01.2011 of the CIT (A), Mysuru, for the A. Y. 2007-08.

When the appeal was called up for hearing, nobody appeared for assessee. It is seen from records that in spite of the date of hearing being mentioned in the notice of hearing, which has been issued and served on the assessee by registered post with acknowledgement due, nobody was present ITA.1624/Bang/2013 Page - 2 on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 23rd November, 2016.

CHANAKYA FINANCE CORPORATION vs. ITO,

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments