SIDDHARTH K. VYAS,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1019/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 January 2020AY 2015-162 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 dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to remove the defects and did not appear before the Tribunal, despite being served with notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). The ITAT issued a defect memo to the assessee for non-compliance with filing requirements.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the assessee fails to comply with the procedural requirements and rectify defects in the appeal filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘SMC’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 28/01/2020Pronounced: 29/01/2020

आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT:

1.

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A), Vadodara dated 22.2.2018 whereby penalty imposed by the AO under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was confirmed.

2.

This appeal was sent through speed post on 23.4.2018. It was registered by the Registry, and thereafter a defect memo was issued to the assessee, according to the objection raised by the Registry. The assessee failed to file copy of the impugned order i.e. (i) order of the ld.CIT(A), (b) appeal has not been filed in proper format, (iii) proper form no.36 has not been filed and ground of appeal and statement of facts filed before the ld.CIT(A) were not submitted. This notice was duly served upon the assessee. But the assessee has neither removed the defect nor appeared before the tribunal.

3. With the assistance of the ld.DR, we have gone through the record. It is mandatory for the assessee to file copy of the impugned order. Since it failed to file such impugned order in spite of repeated notice, therefore, this appeal is dismissed being defective.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being defective.

Order pronounced in the Court on 29th January, 2020 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →