If after filling appeal the assessee is not interest to appear on hearing without application for adjournment it can cause dismissal of the appeal

Last updated: 27 January 2012

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable

Citation :
M/s.Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Limited Radha Bhavan, 1st Floor 121 Nagindas Master Road Mumbai – 400 023.PAN:AABCS4255R.(Appellant) Vs.The Asstt.Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle 40 Mumbai.(Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI

Before Shri R.S.Syal, AM and Shri R.S.Padvekar, JM

ITA No.6876/Mum/2008:Asst. Year 2005-2006

M/s.Classic Shares & Stock Broking

Services Limited

Radha Bhavan, 1st Floor

121 Nagindas Master Road

Mumbai – 400 023.

PAN:AABCS4255R.

(Appellant)

Vs.

The Asstt.Commissioner of Income-tax

Central Circle 40

Mumbai.

(Respondent)

Appellant by: --- None ---

Respondent by: Dr.P.Daniel, Special Counsel

Date of Hearing:16.01.2012.

Date of Pronouncement:18.01.2012

O R D E R

Per R.S.Syal, AM:

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 11.09.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006.

2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable.

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 18th day of January, 2012.

Sd/- Sd/-

(R.S.Padvekar) (R.S.Syal)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai:18th January, 2012.

Devdas*

Copy to :

1. The Appellant.

2. The Respondent.

3. The CIT concerned

4. The CIT(A) Central-VII, Mumbai.