M/s. Opti Products Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2063/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7778 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2063/MDS/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 9 - 1 0 M/S. OPTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 81B, II MAIN ROAD, AMBATTUR INDL. ESTATE, CHENNAI 600 0 58 . [PAN: A A A CO1099E ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD V (1) CHEN NAI 34 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : DR B. NISCHAL, J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 29 . 0 2 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCE MENT : 09 . 0 3 .201 6 / 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. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, CHENNAI , DATED 3 1 . 0 8 .20 1 2 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. TH IS APPEAL WAS IN ITIALLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 29 .0 1 .201 3 AND WHEN THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE HEARING WAS I.T.A. NO . 2063 /M/ 12 2 ADJOURNED TO 16 . 04 .201 3 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND TILL 25.02.2016, THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 25.02.2016, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE HEARING WAS ADJOU RNED TO 29.02.2016. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 29.02.2016, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEE S SIDE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 9 TH MARCH , 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09 . 0 3 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.