Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8955 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-02-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
06-09-2022
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
28-02-2016
Judgement Text
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ’डी’ यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं ी अ ाहम पी.जॉज&, लेखा सद य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.439/Mds/2016 नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Seoyon E-Hwa Automotive Chennai Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Hanyang Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No.A5/1, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Mathur Village, Oraggadam, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District – 602 105. PAN : AACCH 1370 D v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 2(2), Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/Appellant by : None /0यथ. क1 ओर से/Respondent by : Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT स ु नवाई क1 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 06.02.2017 घोषणा क1 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 28.12.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. No.439/Mds/16 2. This appeal was posted on various dates right from 02.05.2016. Finally it was posted on 31.10.2016. At the request of Ld. representative for the assessee, the appeal was adjourned to 13.12.2016. Since 13.12.2016 was declared as closed holiday on account of Milad-E-Nabi, it was adjourned to 14.12.2016 and notice was served by RPAD. On 14.12.2016, no one appeared for the assessee, therefore, notice was issued by RPAD for hearing on 06.02.2017. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 06.02.2017, no one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice. 3. There may be various reasons for the assessee for not appearing before this Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing. One of the reasons, presumably, the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting the appeal. Whatever may be the reason, by keeping the proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, in mind, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, it is made clear that it is open to the assessee to move to this Tribunal for recall of this order provided there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for 3 I.T.A. No.439/Mds/16 non-appearing before this Tribunal on 06.02.2017 when the appeal was taken up for hearing. 4. With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6 th February, 2017 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (अ ाहम पी.जॉज& ) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (Abraham P. George) (N.R.S. Ganesan) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member चे नई/Chennai, 8दनांक/Dated, the 6 th February, 2017. Kri. आदेश क1 / त9ल:प अ;े:षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ./Appellant 2. /0यथ./Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु <त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु <त/CIT, 5. :वभागीय / त न ध/DR 6. गाड& फाईल/GF.
Mehul