KAILASH SHIPPING SERVICES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1917/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 September 2016AY 2011-122 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 noted the assessee's absence and lack of adjournment request, inferring a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-2012. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution. The Tribunal considered the possibility of the assessee being interested but unable to appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

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’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in dated 31.03.2016 for the assessment year 2011-2012 passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

During the course of hearing, we find that nobody :- 2 -: representing assessee has appeared nor any adjournment request has been received. From the conduct of the assessee it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals before the Tribunal.

In these circumstances, as held by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Limited 38 ITD 320 that there may be various reasons for the assessee to remain absent at the time of hearing and one of the reasons might be absence to prosecute the appeal and also following decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Helios and Matheson Information Technology Limited vs ITO in dated 05.07.2011, we hereby dismiss the appeal in limine. However, we make it clear that the assessee is at liberty to file a petition to recall this order provided convincing/sufficient cause be explained for non appearance on the said date of hearing.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 3.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 8th day of September, 2016, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →