DXN HERBAL MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai dated 30.09.2014 in passed under section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) for the assessment year 2011-2012.

When the appeal was called up on the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier date of hearing i.e. 03.08.2015, there was a direction to issue a notice by RPAD. Accordingly, notice was sent and was not claimed by the addressee as per the noting on the envelope. Today also at the time of hearing there was no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. From the conduct of the assessee it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee being a Private Limited Company, should have intimated change of address if any, as notice issued by the Tribunal has returned unserved. 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 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 is dismissed