NIMMALA RAGHUPATHY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 652/HYD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 July 2019AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in effectively pursuing the appeal. Following Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2007-08. The registry pointed out defects regarding the payment of appeal fees, and despite multiple adjournments over three years, the defects were not rectified by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the failure of the assessee to rectify defects in the appeal filing, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur RahmanShri Nimmala Raghupathy

Hearing: 22.07.2019Pronounced: 31.07.2019

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2007-08 against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad, dated 27.02.2015.

2.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 14.05.2015. On perusal of the appeal papers, we note that the Registry pointed out that the appeal is not in order for the reasons that the assessee is required to “file certified copy of challan certifying that appeal fees is paid as “others” and not as “Tax etc.,”. Accordingly, the defect notice was issued and served on the assessee and thereafter, the appeal is being listed along with other connected appeals from 12.08.2015 onwards. It has also been mentioned in the cause list that it is a defective appeal and is being posted for dismissal. However, there was no rectification of the defects and the assessee has been continuously taking time Page 1 of 2

ITA No 625 of 2015 Nimmala Raghupathy Hyderabad.

for rectification of such defects from 6.9.2016 onwards, as is evident from the adjournment letters filed by the Counsel for the assessee Shri P.C. Yadav. However, even though more than 3 years have lapsed even after such date, the defects have not been rectified. Today, again the assessee has filed an application for adjournment seeking further time without rectifying the defect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution with a liberty to assessee to move appropriate application after correction of the defects pointed out in the defect memo along with its correct address for recall of this order. In these terms, the appeal is technically dismissed. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st July, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.Rifaur Rahman) (P. Madhavi Devi) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Hyderabad, dated 31st July, 2019. Vinodan/sps Copy to: 1 C/o MM Fidos, Advocate, 11-3-942, 1st Floor, New Mallepally, Hyderabad 2 Dy.CIT, Circle 6(1) IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-4 Hyderabad 4 CIT – 6 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File By Order

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →