MANAK DEVI BARMECHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2140/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 April 2017AY 2003-042 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the case. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT despite receiving a notice. No authorized person appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee and the consequent dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, ‘ A ’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

For Respondent: Shri. B. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

When the appeal was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee. Despite issue of notice to the address given in Form No.36, no authorized person has appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee

ITA No. 2140/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: is not interested in prosecuting the case. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non- prosecution.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 2.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 3rd day of April, 2017, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →