G.GIRIJASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 743/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 June 2017AY 2011-123 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. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was repeatedly adjourned at the request of their counsel due to unavailability of documents. On the final hearing date, the adjournment was rejected by the bench.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to repeated adjournments and lack of interest shown by the assessee.

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 A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy

Hearing: 05.04.2017Pronounced: 20.06.2017

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) 7, Chennai dated 15.02.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

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.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →