USAMAH AGENCIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Both the appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 5, Chennai, for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10.

Both the appeals were fixed for hearing on 15.06.2016 and notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD. The postal authorities returned the notice with an endorsement “left”. The change of address was not intimated by the assessee to the Registry of this Tribunal.

There may be various reasons for not intimating the change of address to the Registry. This Tribunal has no machinery to trace out the correct address of the assessee to serve the notice of hearing. When the assessee filed appeal, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is for the assessee to intimate the Registry immediately the change of address, if any, so that the assessee can be informed about the date of hearing. The assessee has not chosen to intimate the Registry about the change of address. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Whatever may be the reason for not appearing before this Tribunal on 15.06.2016, by keeping the proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, in mind, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, it is made clear that it is open to the assessee to move to this Tribunal for recall of this order provided there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing before this Tribunal on 15.06.2016 when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

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