Agnite India Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 355/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77380 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CH ENNAI. . . . , . !' !' !' !' , # # # # $% $% $% $% $& $& $& $& BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER $ ./ I.T.A.NO.355/MDS/2013 # ' '' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 M/S. AGNITE INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TELEDATE INFORMATICS LTD.),FIRST FLOOR, 37/1, VELACHERY TAMBARAM MAIN ROAD VELACHERY, CHENNAI-600 042. [PAN : AAACT2976K] VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(1), CHENNAI. ( () () () () /APPELLANT ) ( *+() *+() *+() *+() / RESPONDENT ) () , $ / APPELLANT BY : NONE *+() , $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, CIT-DR $ , -. / DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2014 /0' , -. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.07.2014 1 1 1 1 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, CHENNAI DATED 31.08.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144C(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECALLED BY M.P. NO. 103/MDS/2013 ORDER DATED 3 0.07.2013 AND POSTED FOR HEARING ON 23.09.2013. AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD . AR, THE HEARING WAS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.355 355355 355 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 2 ADJOURNED NUMBER OF TIMES. EVEN AT THE TIME OF POST ING FOR HEARING ON 06.05.2014, THE LD. AR HAS NOTED THE NEXT DATE OF H EARING HAVING ENDORSED IN THE ORDER SHEET. WHEN, THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 23.07.2014, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION FILED. HENCE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT 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 H ONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (22 3 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 IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 23 RD OF JULY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) / VICE-PRESIDENT ( . !' !' !' !' ) (V. DURGA RAO) # # # # $% $% $% $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.07.2014. VM/- I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.355 355355 355 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 3 1 , *#-23 43'- /COPY TO: 1. () / APPELLANT, 2. *+() / RESPONDENT, 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 5 /CIT, 5. 36! *#-# /DR & 6. !' 7 /GF.