Chandra Poojari, A.M.
1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the CIT-IV, Hyderabad dated 24.03.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07.
2. This appeal of the Assessee was instituted on 8.7.2011 and was posted for hearing on 24.10.2011. Notice of hearing was sent through RPAD and the acknowledgement is on record. However, on the date of hearing i.e., 24.10.2011 none appeared on behalf of the Assessee nor any petition seeking adjournment of the hearing was submitted. This conduct of the Assessee shows that the Assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Following the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320, the appeal of the Assessee is not admitted and dismissed in limine.
3. However, the Assessee is at liberty to file a petition for recalling this order, if there is sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing i.e., on 24.10.2011.
4. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th October, 2011.
Pioneer Tor Steel Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of I.t
Pioneer Tor Steel Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of I.t
(Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad)
Income Tax Appeal No. 1291/Hyd/2011 (Assessment Year 2006-07) | 24-10-2011
Advocate List
Bench
- CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
- ASHA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Eq Citations
- LQ/ITAT/2011/2104
Head Note
Income Tax — Appeal before Tribunal — Dismissal in limine — Assessee's conduct — No one appearing on behalf of assessee nor any petition filed seeking adjournment of hearing despite notice of hearing sent through RPAD and acknowledgement on record — Held, Assessee not interested in prosecuting appeal — Appeal of assessee dismissed in limine — However, assessee allowed to file petition for recalling order, if sufficient cause for non-appearance on date of hearing, is shown — [Multiplan India Ltd. v. CIT, 38 ITD 320 (Del.) (Trib.)][Para 2]
