Bansilal & Sons (HUF), CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 809/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9169 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN IRS

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.809/MDS/2016 # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004. M/S. BANSILAL & SONS (HUF) PROP. SATGURU PHARMACEUTICALS, 48, ERULAPPAN STREET, CHENNAI 600 079. [PAN AAAHM 0159A ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE X, CHENNAI 600 006. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : NONE +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, IRS, JCIT. ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 07-06-2016 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-06-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHEN NAI IN ITA NO.13/CIT(A)-5/13-14, DT 09.02.2016 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003- ITA NO. 809/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2004 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE FOUND NOTICE DATED 05.05.2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AS PE R THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COL 10 OF FORM NO. 36. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH POSTAL AUTHORITIES NOTING AS LEFT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE TRIBUNAL . FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN T HESE 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 AN D ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE ABSENCE TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL AN D ALSO FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N 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 ITA NO. 809/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: ORDER PROVIDED CONVINCING/SUFFICIENT CAUSE BE EXPLA INED FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.809/MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JU NE, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 1 / DATED:09.06.2016 KV 2 ) +#-34 54&- / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 6- () / CIT(A) 5. 4 9: +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 6- / CIT 6. :;% < / GF