BANSILAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 809/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 June 2016AY 2003-20043 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, noting the assessee's absence and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the appeal in limine, citing previous judgments. The assessee can file a petition to recall the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but the notice sent by registered post was returned unserved with the remark 'left'. The assessee did not inform the Tribunal of any change of address.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed in limine when the assessee remains absent for hearing and the notice is returned unserved due to change of address.

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, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in dt 09.02.2016 for the assessment year 2003-

ITA No. 809/Mds/2016. :- 2 -:

2004 passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

During the course of hearing, we found notice dated 05.05.2016 was issued to the assessee by RPAD as per the address mentioned in Col 10 of Form No. 36. The said notice was returned unserved with postal authorities noting as ‘’left’’ and the assessee has not intimated the change of address to the Tribunal. From the conduct of the assessee, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal 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. It is pertinent to mention that the law assists to those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. However, we make it clear that the assessee is at liberty to file a petition to recall this ITA No. 809/Mds/2016. :- 3 -:

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.809/Mds/2016 is dismissed Order pronounced on Thursday, the 9th day of June, 2016, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →