T.MUTHU VENKATARAMAN(INDL),SALEM vs. ITO,NCW 1(5), COIMBATORE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal noted that the appeal was time-barred and the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 245 days. The assessee neither filed a condonation petition nor appeared for multiple hearings despite proper service of notice.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, without a condonation petition and with the assessee's non-appearance, can be admitted for hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the Revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore – 1, in Revision No.PCIT, Coimbatore-1/Revision-263/100000174546 /2021 dated 22.02.2021. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 1(5), Coimbatore for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 28.12.2018.
At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 245 days and assessee has neither filed any condonation petition nor any supportive affidavit. When this fact was pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he pointed out that this matter was fixed for hearing ten times and none is present from assessee’s side despite service of notice on the assessee.
After hearing ld.CIT-DR and going through the case records, we noted that this appeal was fixed for hearing on number of occasions i.e., 10 occasions but none is present from assessee’s side despite notice issued through RPAD. The notices issued through RPAD were returned with a remark “assessee deceased & door locked”. It means that the assessee has left the address, as RPAD notices returned back. As the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, we decide the issue ex-parte qua assessee. We also noted that there is a delay of 245 days in filing of appeal and there is neither a condonation petition nor affidavit for condonation of delay. In the absence of the same, we dismiss this appeal of assessee as un-admitted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd May, 2023 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026