Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai

Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational ... vs Ito, Pondicherry on 22 February, 2018

                   आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ''डी'' यायपीठ, चे नई
     IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
      ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज, लेखा सद य एवं ी धु वु आर.एल रे डी, या यक सद य के सम
          Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member &
                Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member

                   आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3329/Mds/2016
                  नधारण वष/Assessment Year :2010-11

Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational               The Income Tax Officer,
Trust, No.24, Mariamman Koil Street,        Vs. Ward-1(2),
Madagadipet, Pondicherry - 605 107.              Pondicherry.

[PAN: AAATM 9599 A]

          (अपीलाथ /Appellant)                             (     यथ /Respondent)

          अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by      :   None
              यथ क ओर से/Respondent by       :   Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
        सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of he a ring    :   15.02.2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronoun cement        :   22.02.2018

                              आदेश /O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Puducherry, Chennai, dated 11.02.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11.

2. The appeal is found to have been filed late by 227 days in filing the appeal. The above defect was notified in the Defect Memo. However, the assessee has not rectified the defect by filing petition for condonation of 2 I.T.A. No.3329/M/16 delay. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 15.02.2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite having noted the date of next hearing by making endorsement in the order sheet. Hence, it is inferred that assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal.

3. Therefore, having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 lTD 320) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the 22nd February, 2018 at Chennai.

 Sd/-                                                               Sd/-
 (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)                                 (DUVVURU RL REDDY)
 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                      JUDICIAL MEMBER
Chennai, Dated, the 22.02.2018
Vm/-
       आदेश क      त ल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant, 2.            यथ /

Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु त (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु त/CIT,

5. वभागीय त न ध/DR & 6. गाड फाईल/GF.