FLAMAGAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1354/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 March 2017AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing on 27.03.2017. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment request received. This was a repeat instance of negligence, as the assessee had also failed to appear on a previous hearing date.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and negligence in pursuing the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 143(3)

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 27.03.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai dated 26.02.2016 in IT Appeal No.253/CIT(A)-6/2014-15 for the assessment year 2011-12 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

In this appeal, notice for hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Card intimating the assessee that the appeal is fixed for hearing on 27.03.2017. However, on 27.03.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any 2 request for adjournment was received. Moreover on the earlier occasion also the assessee had shown gross negligence by not representing its case before the Tribunal on 02.02.2017.

3.

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed before this Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), I dismiss the appeal in limine.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th March, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →