RAJKUMAR REKULAPELLY,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 932/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 November 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-compliance and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The assessee failed to cure defects pointed out by the registry and did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance and non-appearance by the assessee. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 20/11/2019Pronounced: 20/11/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.932/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajkumar Rekulapelly, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Ward-4, Warangal, PAN: AUSPR 4431 Q Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sri R. Mohan Reddy, DR Date of hearing: 20/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 20/11/2019 ORDER

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0048/ITO-4/WGL/CIT(A)-3/2017- 18, dated 05/02/2019 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:-

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine as the appeal is not maintainable without giving any opportunity. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the merits. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in dismissing the appeal that the appeal is not maintainable. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact and decided appeal on merits. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

At the outset, it is observed from the record that the assessee has not cured the defect pointed out by the Registry. Moreover, on the date of the hearing i.e., on 20/11/2019 neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before the Bench and the defects pointed out by the Registry remained to be rectified. Further, it is apparent from the order of the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A) that neither the assessee nor his Counsel appeared before them at the time of hearing. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal and hence, I hereby dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 20th November, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 20th November, 2019

OKK

Copy to:- 1) Rajkumar Rekulapelly C/o. T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, Flat No.102, Gowri Apts, URDU lane, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal, Telangana. 3) The CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →