S.SUNDARARAMAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2437/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 July 2016AY 2007-20083 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, considering the repeated adjournments and the returned notice, concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were listed for hearing multiple times but were adjourned due to various reasons, including the bench not functioning and requests from the assessee's AR. Ultimately, the notice sent to the assessee was returned with the remark 'party left'.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “D” BENCH(SMC

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Hearing: 13.06.2016Pronounced: 06.07.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

1.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), dated 30.6.2014 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 08.

- - 2 ITA 2436 & 2437/14

2.

Firstly, the cases were fixed for hearing on 1.1.2015 but the Bench did not function and adjourned to 14.4.2015. Again on 14.4.2015, the cases were adjourned to 7.7.2015, as it was a closed holiday. Further, the cases were adjourned at the request of the ld. AR and due to non-function of the Bench.

Once again, the cases were adjourned to 27.6.2016 at the request of the ld. AR vide letter dated 4.4.2016. Finally, the cases were adjourned to 13.6.2016 and the notice of the hearing was sent to the assessee through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) at the address given in Form No. 36, but the same was returned with the remark “party left” and when the case was called for hearing on 13.6.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been received.

3.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal

- - 3 ITA 2436 & 2437/14 before this Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P.

Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss the appeals of the assessee for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →