AVR TEXTILES LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1742/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 February 2017AY 2013-142 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. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. A notice sent by registered post was returned unserved with the remark 'No such addressee'.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and the notice is unserved.

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(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.

Before: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy

Hearing: 15.02.2018Pronounced: 22.02.2018

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) 1, Coimbatore, dated 31.03.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 03.10.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the Bench has directed to issue notice to the assessee by RPAD and notice was issued. The said notice has been received back unserved with remark of the postal authorities that “No such addressee @ above address”. The assessee has also not filed any change of address. 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 lTD 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 22nd February, 2018 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →