M/S. TRANS TEMPO PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3057/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 January 2017AY 2010-112 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 since there was no proper authorization or vakalath on record for the counsel filing the adjournment petition, it could not be considered. The tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was called for hearing, but no one appeared for them. An adjournment petition was filed by a Chartered Accountants firm, but the tribunal noted that the authorization was for an advocate firm, not the one filing the petition.

What were the issues?

Whether an adjournment petition filed by an unauthorized firm can be considered. Whether the appeal should be dismissed 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. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

When this appeal was called for hearing, nobody appeared for the assessee but adjournment petition was filed by a Chartered Accountants firm. I find that assessee had given authorization for an advocate firm and not for a Chartered Accountants firm. Thus there is no authorization or vakalath on record, for the Counsel who has filed the petition for adjournment. Since

ITA No.3057/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: there is no Power of Attorney of assessee on record, this petition for adjournment cannot be considered.

2.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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.

3.

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

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 31st day of January, 2017, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →