What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear for the hearing and did not rectify the defects in the appeal filing. The defects included incorrect respondent name, improper form, missing original order copy, and unsigned forms.

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's decision to apply a 10% net profit rate on gross revenue. The assessee claimed to have produced complete books of accounts. The appeal filed before the ITAT had several defects, and the assessee failed to rectify them.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was maintainable due to defects in filing and non-appearance of the assessee. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the net profit rate without logical basis.

M/S Road Tech Construcation Co… vs ACIT | s.143(3), 250(6) | ITAT Amritsar 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR

Hearing: 26.12.2022Pronounced: 31.01.2023

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] bearing appeal No. 283/ROT/IT/CIT(A)-2/LDH/2018-19, date of order 12.12.2018, order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2015-16.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-III, Srinagar,(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act date of order 24.11.2017. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “

1. That the Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in both facts and laws by upholding the Net profit Rate of 10% on Gross Revenue without any logical basis, When the assessee produced Complete books of accounts.

2. That the appellant crave leave to amend, alter or add any grounds of appeal before the Same is heard & disposed off. It is Prayed that impugned order be quashed in full.”

2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has upheld the order of the ld. AO. The appeal was filed before ITAT with defect. The assessee’s case was fixed on 12.12.2022 and was informed by the registry by RPAD to remove the defects. The date of hearing was fixed on 26.12.2022. The assessee was called for hearing in ITAT, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. The assessee had not filed any application for removal of the defects. The following defects are come out from the registry which is extracted as below:

“1. Respondent name wrongly filled in. 2. Appeal not filed in prescribed form no 36. 3. One original /certified copy of original order of CIT (A) not filed. 4. Two copies of form no 36 are not signed in original but photo copied. 5. Tribunal fee challan does not indicate the category/head under which the fee was paid. You are. therefore, once again requested to rectify the said defects within 10 days of the receipt of this letter.”

During hearing proceeding, none was present and no action was taken from the end of the assessee to the removal of the defects. The Registrar (O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying the appellant regularly and intimating through the ITAT website& Postal Communication that the petitioner must attend to remove the defect or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit.In our considered view that the assessee is negligent &is not interested to proceedthis appeal further.Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as default.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is dismissed as defective.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2023

M/S ROAD TECH CONSTRUCATION CO,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments