BHUPINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-22(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 704/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 October 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not removed defects pointed out by the Registry in the appeal filing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to being defective.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The assessee failed to attend the proceedings despite multiple notices, and the notices sent by speed post were returned marked 'no such person'.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the defective filing of the appeal and the assessee's non-appearance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without addressing the substantive grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 2(22)(e),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 25.10.2022

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi, dated 26.10.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

That the impugned order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income tax Act 1961 is bad in law and needs to be set-aside. 2) That the impugned order u/s 250 is not sustainable under the law and needs to be set aside. 3) That the ‘Reason to belief’ as recorded by the assessing authority prior to the issuance of notice u/s 148 is insufficient and without any proper investigation. 4) That the provision of section 2(22)€ is wrongly applied in this case without considering the facts of the case. 5) That the amount considered as accumulated profit is wrong and needs to be set aside. 6) That Ld. AA illegally charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, which is illegal.”

2.

At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that no one has been attending the proceedings despite various notices issued by the Registry. The notices sent by speed post have been returned back with the remark “no such person”. The assessee has also not provided any new address, if any. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

3.

It is noticed that the Registry has reported the following defects in filing of the appeal:

“1. Respondent address wrongly filled in. 2. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300. 3. Assessment order is incomplete.”

4.

The assessee has not removed the defects. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee, being defective, is herby dismissed.

5.

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 25.10.2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →