G.GIRIJASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 15.02.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.

At the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the appeal is adjourned and posted for hearing on 16.08.2016. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, at the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the hearing of the appeal is adjourned to 17.11.2016 on the ground that certain documents are not readily available. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 17.11.2016, on similar plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the hearing was further adjourned to 13.02.2017 as well as on 05.04.2017. Even when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 05.04.2017, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted petition for adjournment with same stereo type reason for adjournment and thus, the Bench rejected grant of adjournment. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

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.