SIERRAWARE SOFTWARE SOLUTITIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2436/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 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 held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with the defects pointed out by the Registry. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 against the order of the CIT(A). The Registry issued a defect memo which the assessee failed to comply with, despite opportunities. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance of defects pointed out by the registry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 07.08.2025.

2.

We find that the Registry had issued a defect memo pointing out certain defects in the appeal and directed the assessee to comply the same. However, the assessee has not rectified the defects despite being afforded adequate opportunities. On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor has any request for adjournment or extension of time been filed. It is, therefore, apparent that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution as well as for non-compliance with the defects pointed out by the Registry. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of defects and for want of prosecution.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →