Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1827 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-02-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
22-08-2023
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
06-12-2015
Judgement Text
आयकर अपीलय अ धकरण, ‘’सी’’ यायपीठ, चेनई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C ” BENCH, CHENNAI ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी , लेखा सदय एवं ी जी. पवन कुमार, यायक सदय के सम BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2218/Mds/2015 नधा रण वष /Assessment year : 2009-2010 M/s. Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Ltd, Plot No.1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram Dist. Tamil Nadu 602 105. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3) Chennai. [PAN AADCR 7965B ] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) अपीलाथ! क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None $%यथ! क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. Pathlaveth Peerya, IRS, CIT. सुनवाई क" तार(ख/Date of Hearing : 27-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार(ख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in ITA No. 39/2013-14/A-3, dt 02.09.2015 for the assessment year 2009-2010 ITA No.2218/Mds/2015. :- 2 -:passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. When the appeal was called up on the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier date of hearing i.e. 19.01.2016, an adjournment petition was filed by the assessee requesting for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 27.01.2016 and there was a direction to issue a notice and accordingly notice was sent to the assessee. Today also at the time of hearing there was no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. From the conduct of the assessee it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal 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 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. It is pertinent to mention that the law assists to those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. However, we make it clear that the assessee is at liberty to file a petition to recall this order ITA No.2218/Mds/2015. :- 3 -:provided convincing/sufficient cause be explained for non appearance on the said date of hearing. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2218/Mds/2015 is dismissed Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 3rd day of February, 2016, at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) लेखा सद%य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जी. पवन कुमार) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) या)यक सद%य /JUDICIAL MEMBER चेनई/Chennai +दनांक/Dated: 3rd February, 2016. KV आदेश क" $त.ल/प अ0े/षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ!/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु1त/CIT 2. $%यथ!/Respondent 5. /वभागीय $तन4ध/DR 3. आयकर आयु1त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF
Mehul