<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (9) TMI 1687 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462981</link>
    <description>An ITAT appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing despite service of notice at the address provided in Form No. 36. The tribunal noted that the assessee appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the appeal and relied on the principle that filing an appeal is not enough; it must be effectively prosecuted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 20:09:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1687 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462981</link>
      <description>An ITAT appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing despite service of notice at the address provided in Form No. 36. The tribunal noted that the assessee appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the appeal and relied on the principle that filing an appeal is not enough; it must be effectively prosecuted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>