Sooriya Hospital, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1210/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95824 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' # , $ %& ' [ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1210/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S SOORIYA HOSPITAL NO.1/1 ARUNACHALAM ROAD SALIGRAMAM CHENNAI 600 093 VS. THE DY. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1) CHENNAI [PAN AALFS 1340 N ] ( () / APPELLANT) ( #*() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 29 - 03 - 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 0 3 - 2016 + / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI-4, DA TED 24.3.2015, PASSED U/S 264 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN DISMISSING THE PETITION U/S 264 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE B Y LETTER DATED ITA NO. 1210/15 :- 2 -: 25.3.2016 REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE REASON MENTIONED IN THE LETTER FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IS THAT HE IS AWAY F ROM CHENNAI. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS VAGUE AND NOT A PROPER REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE, WE REJECT THE ADJO URNMENT PETITION AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE CASE ON HEARING THE LD. D R AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. FROM THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS DISMIS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 12.8.2015 FOR NON-PROSECUTION BY TH E ASSESSEE. THIS ORDER WAS LATER RECALLED BY ORDER DATED 12.2.2016 I N M.P.NO.181/MDS/2015. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ORDER S HEET THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED WITH SO MANY DEFECTS. DEFECT NOTIC E WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE INFORMING VARIOUS DEFECTS IN FILIN G THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED WAY BACK ON 20.5.2015. HOWEVER, T ILL DATE, THE DEFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 264 OF THE ACT BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 4. ON A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 253 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, RELATING TO THE APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U/S 264 IS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER WITHIN THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 253 OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO. 1210/15 :- 3 -: NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THUS, WE DI SMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !'# $ % ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) &' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # ( !) *+' & ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) + &' / JUDICIAL MEMBER !+ / CHENNAI ,& / DATED: 30 TH MARCH, 2016 RD &-## ./#0/ / COPY TO: # 1 . / APPELLANT 4. # 1 / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. /2*# 3 / DR 3. # 1#(4 / CIT(A) 6. *5#6 / GF