S.P.Chockalingam, Trichy V. DCIT, Trichy

ITSSA 18/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8124 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. NO. 18/MDS/2010 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 1987-88 TO 1998-99 UPTO 10 .02.1998 SHRI SP. CHOCKALINGAM, 25/1, ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR STREET, KARAIKUDY. [PAN: ABAPS4667E] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, 44, WILLAIMS ROAD, TRICHY 620 001. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.09.2011 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, RAISED IN THE BLOCK A SSESSMENT YEAR COMPRISING OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1998-99 A ND UPTO 10.02.1998, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUC HIRAPPALLI DATED 03.05.2010. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING EARLIER ON 1 5.12.2010 AND ON THAT DATE, DESPITE HAVING DULY SERVED, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS REMAIN UNREPRESENTED AND ALSO NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE. CONSE QUENTLY, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. LATER ON, WHEN THE MISCELLANE OUS PETITION IN M.P.NO.75/MDS/2011 WAS FILED AND THE PETITION WA S FIXED FOR HEARING, NOBODY CAME TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSE E. BUT, TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND WITH A VIEW TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS I.T.(SS)A I.T.(SS)A I.T.(SS)A I.T.(SS)A NO. NO. NO. NO.18 1818 18/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/1 11 10 00 0 2 MENTIONED IN THE PETITION FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON 15. 12.2010, THE BENCH CHOSE TO RECALL THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. AFTER RECALLING THE ORDE R, THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.09.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SER VED FOR THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLAN T IS ON RECORD. NONETHELESS, EVEN TODAY, NOBODY HAS COME TO REPRESE NT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. THE NON-APPEARANCE BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 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 MULTIPLA N (INDIA) LTD. (38 ITD 320) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT 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 IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.09.2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 19.09.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.