S. Umamaheswaran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2201/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8264 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , . ! , ' !# $ [ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 2201/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI S. UMAMAHESWARAN OLD NO.28, NEW NO.8 MADURAI VEERAN KOIL STREET T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 2(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAMPU 9940 K] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CLEM E NT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 10 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 10 - 2016 ) / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNA I IN I.T.A.NO. 129/CIT(A)-2/2014-15 DATED 31.3.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE FIND THAT NOBODY REPRESENTING ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED NOR ANY ADJOURNM ENT REQUEST HAS ITA NO. 2201/16 :- 2 -: BEEN RECEIVED INSPITE OF ISSUING HEARING NOTICE. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THESE CIRCUMS TANCES, 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 ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE ABSENCE TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL AND ALSO FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE 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 CA USE BE EXPLAINED FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2OTH OCTOBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2016 RD %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF