Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
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’).
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.