What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the appeals were defective and not maintainable due to the lack of action from the assessee and the inability to contact them. Consequently, the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits.

The assessee's authorized representative had previously informed the tribunal about a merger and undertook to file revised documents. However, no further action was taken, and the assessee or its representative failed to appear for subsequent hearings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeals due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide updated information after a reported merger.

M/S Leeboy India Construction… vs ACIT | ITAT Bangalore 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “C” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Hearing: 26.10.2021Pronounced: 30.11.2021

Assessee by : None Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Revenue by : JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Issues raised by assessee in both the appeals are common and on identical facts. Therefore these were tagged together. On perusal of the records, the preliminary issue that needs to be considered is whether these appeals are maintainable in lieu of submission made by the representative who appeared before this Tribunal on 06/06/2019.

Today at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee.

Page 2 of 3 & 1529/Bang/2018 2.1 We note that on 06/06/2019, the authorized representative of assessee being SKNJ & Co. CA’s undertook to file power of Attorney before this Tribunal. The Representative (Shri.Sarwan Kumar) who appeared on 06/06/2019 informed this Tribunal that assessee has merged with another company and that revised Form36 will have to be filed. This Tribunal accordingly adjourned the date of hearing to 01/10/2019 for necessary actions. On 01/10/2019 the bench was not functioning and, the case was adjourned to 08/01/2020. In the interregnum, period, no action was undertaken by the authorized representative. Notice was issued to assessee at the address mentioned in Form 36 available on record. Thereafter the appeals were listed on 08/04/2020. As the Bench was not functioning on the even date, the appeals were adjourned to 04/08/2020, with intimation regarding the date of hearing displayed on the notice board.

Subsequently, on various occasions the appeals were listed and were adjourned as none appeared on behalf of assessee as observed by us from the order sheet entries. On each date the notice intimating the date of hearing has been sent to assessee at the address mentioned in Form 36 available on record which is received back with a note by postal authorities, “Addressee left”.

We note that the Authorised representative who appeared on 06/06/2019 neither took any steps to inform this Tribunal regarding any merger and the details of the new entity subsequent to such merger if any. Nor has any one for the assessee company appeared before this Tribunal on any of the occasions. Nothing has been filed before this Tribunal even through post by the assessee or its representative updating

Page 3 of 3 & 1529/Bang/2018 information regarding address of assessee. We are therefore unable to extend substantial justice to a non-existent assessee. 5. We thus hold the present appeal to be defective and therefore not maintainable. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed inlimine. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 30th November, 2021.

M/S LEEBOY INDIA CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments