The appeal should be signed by the assessee otherwise it can be treated as absence of interest for prosecution and deserved to dismiss

Last updated: 08 June 2012

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
No one was present on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was also moved on behalf of assessee. At the time of hearing before us two defects were found in the receipt. Firstly the appeal is not signed by the Managing Director and secondly the CIT’s order is not duly certified. It is found that assessee has not rectified the same.

Citation :
Hartex Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata [PAN: AABCK 1284 C] Appellant . -Vs.- C.I.T., Central-I, Kolkata Respondent For the Appellant: None For the Respondent: Shri L.K.S.Dehiya

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

[Before Sri C. D. Rao, AM & Sri George Mathan, JM ]

I.T.A No. 144/Kol/2012

Assessment Year: 2004-05

Hartex Rubber Pvt. Ltd.

Kolkata [PAN: AABCK 1284 C]

Appellant

. -Vs.-

C.I.T., Central-I,

Kolkata

Respondent

For the Appellant: None

For the Respondent: Shri L.K.S.Dehiya

Date of Hearing: 14.05.2012.

Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2012.

ORDER

Per C. D. Rao, A. M.

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of Ld. CIT-Central-I, Kolkata dated 07.12.2011 pertaining to Assessment Year 2004-05.

2. No one was present on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was also moved on behalf of assessee. At the time of hearing before us two defects were found in the receipt. Firstly the appeal is not signed by the Managing Director and secondly the CIT’s order is not duly certified. It is found that assessee has not rectified the same.

3. In view of the above we are of the view that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal.

4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320, we dismiss the appeal as assessee not interested.

5. However, the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2012.

Sd/- Sd/-

[George Mathan] [C. D. Rao]

Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated: 14.05.2012.

[RG /.PS]

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. Hartex Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Kamala Tower Plot No.1-8-307, Patigadda Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016.

2 C.I.T., Central-I, Kolkata

3. The CIT,

4. The CIT (A)- Kolkata.