What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the defects pointed out by the registry were not rectified by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order. The appeal was found to be defective due to short appeal fees, non-signing of required forms, and incorrect payment of fees.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be admitted when it suffers from significant procedural defects that remain unrectified by the appellant.

Bharat Gola, Jeewan Park vs CIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Pronounced: 08.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 8605/DEL/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) BHARAT GOLA COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS H NO 130, GALI NO. 6, JEEWAN PARK SIRASPUR,, NEW DELHI- VIKAS BHAWAN I P ESTATE, Vs. 110042, DELHI NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: BLFPG4634K

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: None ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 08.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 21.08.2024 arising out of assessment order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee was called absent.

ITA 8605/DEL/2025 BHARAT GOLA

At the outset, we have noted that the Registry had identified the appeal as a defective appeal on account of short appeal fees by an amount of Rs.9,000/-, non-signing of Form-36 and grounds of appeal and payment of appeal fees under incorrect heads. Request for correction was made on 19.12.2025 by the Registry. The defects have not been removed by the appellant assessee. 4. Considering non-removal of defects by the appellant assessee, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous being defective. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 2 of 2

BHARAT GOLA,JEEWAN PARK vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS, VIKAS BHAWAN I P ESTATE

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