M/s. Sterling Agro Product Processing Private Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 719/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64615 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BASHYAM JT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.719/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S STERLING AGRO PRODUCT PROCESSING PVT. LTD STERLING TOWERS 327, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600 006 [PAN AACCS8707R] VS THE ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(4) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 6-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-12-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI, DATED 13.1.2012. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5.9.2012 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.9.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE A .R OF THE ASSESSEE, MS.DEEPA. ON 6.9.2012, THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT SHE WANTS TO FILE CERTAIN PAPERS FOR WHICH SHE WANTED TIME. TIME WAS GRANTED TO THE A.R AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.9.20 12. ON 24.9.2012, I.T.A.NO. 719/2012 :- 2 -: THE A.R AGAIN REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEAR ING AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.12.2012. VIDE LETTER DATED 5.12 .2012, THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WHER EIN THE REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT READS AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS FILING A RECTIFICATION PETITION WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AS DIRECTED BY THE BENCH FOR A.Y 2002-03 DURING THE PREVIOUS HEARING. WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY ADJOURN THE ABOVE APPEAL TO A REGULAR DATE AND OBLIGE. 3. A READING OF THE ABOVE REASON SHOWS THAT THE BENCH HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RECTIFICATION PETITI ON BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. WE OBSERVE FROM THE ORDER SHEET OF THE APPEAL FILED THAT NO SUCH DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO TH E A.R OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESE NT IN THE COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING TO MOVE THE ADJOURNMENT PETITIO N. THEREFORE, FINDING THE REASON FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT BEIN G NOT A PLAUSIBLE ONE, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE A.R WAS REJ ECTED BY THE BENCH. 4. NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ITS A.R ON THE D ATE OF HEARING SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL WHICH IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTI ON FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD (1991) 38 ITD 320(DEL.) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF I.T.A.NO. 719/2012 :- 3 -: HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL V S UOI IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009, ORDER DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. 5. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED, IT MAY FILE A MISCELLA NEOUS PETITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SHOW REASONABLE CA USE FOR NOT BEING PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND THE TRIBUNAL, IF SATISFIED, MAY RECALL IT ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 10 TH OF DECEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10 TH DECEMBER, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR