M/s. Madras Polymoulds, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 59/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4865 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C BEFORE SHRI PRADEEP PARIKH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.59/MDS/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO.1791/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 M/S.MADRAS POLYMOULDS 108, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD MYLAPORE CHENNAI 600 004. PAN AAAFM 1214 A VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-I(3) CHENNAI-34. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B.SEKARAN O R D E R PER PRADEEP PARIKH, V.P. BY THIS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2.2.2010. 2. EARLIER THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR W ANT OF PROSECUTION AS NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WHICH IS ON RECORD. IN THIS APPL ICATION, IT IS STATED THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT REMAIN PRESENT AS HE WAS AWAY TO MUMBAI FOR SOME PROFESSIO NAL ASSIGNMENT. HE HAD DEPUTED A PERSON WITH A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT THE SAID PERSON COULD NOT APPEAR BE FORE THE BENCH AS HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THER EFORE, IT IS PLEADED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE AS IT HAS A FAIR CHANCE SUCCEED IN THE APPEAL. THE LD. D.R. OBJECTED TO THE RESTORING OF T HE APPEAL. 2 MA 59/10 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESS EE. FIRSTLY, THE PREOCCUPATION OF THE AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE WITH SOME OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASSIGNMENT IS NOT A VA LID GROUND TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT. SECONDLY, IT SEEMS THAT THE PERSON WHOM HE HAD DEPUTED TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT MUST NOT BE A PERSON AUTHORISED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (THE ACT) TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ELSE IT COULD N OT HAVE BEEN THE CASE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CONSTITU TION OF THE BENCH. TODAY AGAIN, NONE APPEARED WHEN THE MATT ER WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS OF THE TRIBUNA L IS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK LEFT. TH US, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE STANDS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17.09.2010 . SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (PRADEEP PARIKH) VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 17 TH SEPT., 2010 MPO* COPY TO : APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR