V.B.Senthil Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 516/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4863 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI A.M . I.T.A. NO. 516/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 V.B. SENTHIL KUMAR, 2182, PLOT NO.3, 12 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 041. [PAN: ALKPS8257N] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I, CHENNAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH COP Y OF THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AND THE DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT ALO NG WITH NOTICE OF HEARING, WHICH WAS SENT AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COL.10 OF FORM 36 THROUGH RPAD, BUT SAME CAME BACK UNDELIVERED WITH P OSTAL REMARK DOOR LOCKED, INTIMATION DELIVERED AND THE POSTMAN VISITE D ON 29.03.2011 AND 30.03.2011. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME FORWARD T O COLLECT THE LETTER FROM THE POST OFFICE NOR HE HAS APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT EXECUTED ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVO UR OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OR ADVOCATE TO APPEAR IN THE APPEAL PROC EEDINGS. SO, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. I.T.A. NO I.T.A. NO I.T.A. NO I.T.A. NO. .. .516 516516 516/MDS/1 /MDS/1 /MDS/1 /MDS/11 11 1 2 3. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULT IPLAN (INDIA) LTD. (38 ITD 320) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEAR ING ON 16.06.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 16.06.2011 VM/- TO:THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.