Panasonic Corporation, Haryana V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1483/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5788 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RU GEORGE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 1483 /MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :201 3 - 1 4 M/S. PANASONIC CORPORATION, C/O PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD., 6 TH FLOOR, SPIC BUILDING, ANNEXE NO. 88, MOUNT ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 03 2 . [PAN: A A AC M7746A ] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2 ( 2 ) , CHENNAI 600 0 06 . ( APPELLANT ) ( R ESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. RUBY GEORGE, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 . 11 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 27 .11 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANE L 2, BENGALURU AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1 3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX A C T, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] . I.T.A. NO. 1483 /M /17 2 2. THE APPEAL WAS INITIALLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 07 .0 8 .2017 AND SINCE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 25. 09.2017 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD. N OTICE ISSUED WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE [AD ON RECORD] . W HEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 25 . 09 .2017, AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 13.11.2017 BY MARKING THE APPEAL AS F IRST O N B OARD . HAVING NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ENDORSED IN THE ORDER SHEET. HOWEVER, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 13.11.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, DEFECT FOUND IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS NOTIFIED IN THE DEFECT MEMO BY TYPING IN BOLD LETTER THAT DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE FILED IN DUPLICATE , BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE RECTIFIED THE DEFECT NOTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL NOR PUT HIS APPEARANCE ON THE DAY OF HEARING OF THE AP PEAL. HENCE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 3. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. (38 ITD 320) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. I.T.A. NO. 1483 /M /17 3 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THE 27 TH NOVEMBER , 2017 AT CHENNAI. S D/ - SD/ - (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 27 . 1 1 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.