SANATAN NAYAK,MADHUBAN, PARADIP vs. I.T.O, PARADIP- WARD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADHUBAN, PARADIP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 275/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 August 2024AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application. As the defects in the appeal were not rectified, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). A defect notice was issued to the assessee, but the defects were not cured. The assessee also filed an adjournment application which was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-compliance with defect notices and rejection of adjournment application.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Hearing: 29/0Pronounced: 29/0

Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sanatan Nayak, Sanatan Nayak, Vs. ITO, ITO, Paradeep Paradeep Ward, Ward, At-Plot No.31, Gjai Colony, Plot No.31, Gjai Colony, Paradeep. Paradeep. Madhuban, Paradeep. Madhuban, Paradeep. PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AEIPN 9617 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None (Adjournment application) : None (Adjournment application) Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 29/0 08/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29/0 /08/2024 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 12.5.2023 in in Appeal Appeal No. No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10253/2018 Cuttack/10253/2018-19 for the assessment year 2016- -17.

2.

None appeared for appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition However, an adjournment petition has been filed requesting to adjourn the matter to some other date. has been filed requesting to adjourn the matter to some other date. has been filed requesting to adjourn the matter to some other date. The adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected. adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected. adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. A perusal of appeal folder shows that a defect notice was issued as A perusal of appeal folder shows that a defect notice was issued as A perusal of appeal folder shows that a defect notice was issued as early as on 21.6.2024. Till today, the assessee has not thought it early as on 21.6.2024. Till today, the assessee has not thought it early as on 21.6.2024. Till today, the assessee has not thought it

P a g e 1 | 2 appropriate to file the necessary affidavit for condoning the delay. As the defects have not been cured, the appeal is dismissed for defects.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/08/2024.

Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29/08/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant : Sanatan Nayak, At-Plot No.31, Gjai Colony, Madhuban, Paradeep 2. The Respondent: ITO, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →