C.Yogalakshmi, CHENNAI V. JCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1489/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8988 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1489/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) MRS. C.YOGALAKSHMI, BLOCK 6, FLAT 3C, RANI MEYYAMAI TOWERS, MRC NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 028. VS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS RANGE-XV, CHENNAI. PAN: ACBPY8463G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD JUNE, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD JUNE, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 2 , CHENNAI DATED 16.03.2015 IN ITA NO.252/CIT(A)-12/2013-14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) & 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. INITIALLY, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2 5.08.2015, HOWEVER THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29.10.2015 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. ON 29.10.2015 ALSO THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT HENCE THE CAS E WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 24.12.2015. ON 24.12.2015 THE LEARNED AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH, H ENCE THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.02.2016. THEREAFTER ON 25.02. 2016 & 25.04.2016 THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ONCE AGAIN SO UGHT ADJOURNMENT, 2 ITA NO.1489/MDS/2015 HENCE THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 23.06.2016 . HOWEVER ON 23.06.2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE , NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL F ILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DEL HI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA P. LTD., REPORTED IN 38 I TD 320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE HEREBY DISMI SS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 23 RD JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 23 RD JUNE, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF