Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, dated 14.03.2014, for the assessment year 2010-2011 passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’).
During the course of hearing, we found that notice Dated 2.
21.06.2016 was sent by RPAD and served on the assessee on 26.06.2016 evident from the postal acknowledgement placed on record. Despite notice, at the time of hearing, none appeared on . :- 2 -: behalf of the assessee. 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 in ITA 3.
No.1848/Mds/2014 is dismissed Order pronounced on Monday, the 8th day of August, 2016, at Chennai.