WEBTECH ENGINEERING P. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, TDS, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 689/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 December 2021AY 2013-143 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 defective due to the assessee's failure to cure the defects and pursue the appeal. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall by undertaking to cure defects and argue on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Webtech Engineering P. Ltd., filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear for hearings and did not address defects pointed out by the registry in their appeal filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable given the unaddressed defects and the assessee's lack of representation. The substantive issues relate to additions made by the AO and penalty levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI R.K.PANDA

For Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 06.12.2021Pronounced: 07.12.2021

Date of Hearing 06.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2021 Hearing conducted via Webex ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 30th November, 2017 of CIT(A), Faridabad is assailed on the following grounds :

“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 5,75,560/- allegedly onnaccount of penalty 221(1). 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @ 20% after being satisfied with serious cash crunch in the company.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. AO charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the income Tax Act, 1961.

4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal

before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. However, No one was present on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. The record further shows that on the earlier date i.e. 5th October, 2021 also the assessee remained un-represented. On 11th August, 2021 it is seen that the appeal was adjourned on the written request of the assessee.

Despite these facts, it is noticed that the following Defects pointed out by the Registry in the filing of the present appeal on 23rd April, 2018 remain unaddressed :

“1. Appeal Fee is short by Rs. 500. 2. Tribunal fee Challan not filed. 3. Original form 36 not filed in triplicate.”

3.

Thus, it is seen that since the assessee has not even cared to cure the defects despite issuance of notice and putting in an appearance also it appears that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. In the face of the continued defects pointed out by the Registry, the appeal is dismissed as defective. Liberty is given to the assessee to pray for a recall of this order by giving an undertaking that the assessee shall cure the defects and is ready to argue the appeal on merits.

4.

Accordingly for the reasons hereinabove in terms of the directions given the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as defective. Said order was pronounced in the open court via Webex at the time of hearing itself.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 07 Day of December, 2021 in presence of both the parties.

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →