Assessee's Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance

The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal for want of prosecution due to non-appearance, failure to rectify defects, and non-payment of appeal fees. The decision was based on Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and legal precedents, including the Delhi Bench's decision in Multiplan (India) Ltd. and the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar. The Tribunal found the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal evident and pronounced the judgment on December 27, 2017, in Chennai.

---

---

Issues: Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the assessee, failure to rectify defects, and non-payment of appeal fees.

Issue 1: Non-appearance of the assessee and failure to rectify defects

The appeal filed by the assessee was scheduled for a hearing, but on the designated date, neither the assessee nor any representative appeared, and no adjournment petition was submitted. Additionally, the defects highlighted in the Defect Memo, specifically regarding the payment of appeal fees under the sub-head "Others," were not rectified. This lack of action by the assessee indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

Issue 2: Dismissal of the appeal

Considering the circumstances and in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, the Tribunal referred to precedents, including the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. and the judgment of the Honorable Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar. Citing these references, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution due to the non-appearance, failure to rectify defects, and the lack of interest demonstrated by the assessee in pursuing the case.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-appearance, failure to rectify defects, and the absence of payment of appeal fees. The decision was made following the provisions of Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and in line with established legal precedents. The judgment was pronounced on December 27, 2017, in Chennai.

---