MELAKANDY PUTHALATH ASHRAF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1848/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 August 2016AY 2010-20112 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 inferred a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). A notice was duly served on the assessee, but no one appeared on their behalf during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance despite proper notice. The assessee's interest in prosecuting the appeal was questioned.

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, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →