Melakandy Puthalath Ashraf, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1848/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8878 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NO. 1848/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 MR. MELAKANDY PUTHALATH ASHRAF, NO.29/13, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, TEYNAMPETY, CHENNAI 600 006. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II, CHENNAI. [PAN AACPA 7238A] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : NONE $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT. & ' '( /DATE OF HEARING : 08-08-2016 )* ' '( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-08-2016 !' / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- II, CHENNAI, DATED 14.03.2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-201 1 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE FOUND THAT NOTICE DATED 21.06.2016 WAS SENT BY RPAD AND SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE ON 26.06.2016 EVIDENT FROM THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECORD. DESPITE NOTICE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NON E APPEARED ON ITA NO.1848/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASS ESSEE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING TH E APPEALS 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 A BSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE ABSENCE TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL AND ALSO FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HELIOS AND MATHESON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED VS ITO IN ITA NO.134/MDS/2011, DATED 05.07. 2011, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 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 AP PEARANCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1848/MDS/2014 IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ' !& / JUDICIAL MEMBER +& / CHENNAI , / DATED: 8TH AUGUST, 2016 KV - ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1. ! / APPELLANT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 5. /45 $'6 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. 1' / CIT 6. 57 8& / GF