SUPER AUTO FORGE PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1536/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 August 2016AY 2010-113 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, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, dismissed both appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee can seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were listed for hearing. Despite proper service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Hearing: 11.08.2016Pronounced: 11.08.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective order of CIT(A) -15, Chennai for the Assessment Years 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing off the same by this common order.

2.

When both the appeals are taken up for hearing on 11.08.2016, no one appeared for the assessee even though the notice of hearing was served on the assessee by R.P.A.D. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as a proof of service of notice of hearing.

3.

There may be various reasons for the assessee for not appearing before this Tribunal on 11.08.2016 when the appeal was taken up for hearing. One of the reasons, presumably, the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting this appeal in further. Whatever may be the reason, by keeping the provisions to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, in mind, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution. However, it is made clear that it is open to the assessee to move this Tribunal for recall of this order provided there is sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing before this Tribunal on 11.08.2016 when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

4.

With the above observation, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2016 at Chennai

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →