SHRI. S M N SOURDHA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1& TPS, VIJAYAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 183/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 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 noted that despite a defect memo being issued, the assessee failed to remove the pointed-out defects. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as unadmitted and defective.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT, but these appeals were found to be defective. The defects included not filing grounds of appeal and statement of facts, and unclear fee payment details.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-removal of defects in the appeals filed by the assessee, leading to their dismissal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 10.03.2020Pronounced: 29.05.2020

O R D E R

Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member These two appeals are filed by the assessee and these are directed against two separate orders of learned CIT(A), Belgaum both dated 31.12.2018 for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

These appeals are defective and defect memo was issued by the Registry in which it was stated that grounds of appeal

1.

raised before CIT(A) and statement of facts filed before CIT (A) are not filed and Tribunal Fee Challan / Receipt / Counterfoil did not indicate the category under which the fee was paid and the assessee was requested to submit copy of Form 26AS and 183/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 3 showing the details of fee paid. As per the records of the Tribunal, the assessee has not removed the defects pointed out by the Registry of the Tribunal. These appeals were fixed for hearing for the first time on 19.11.2019 but on this date, none appeared on behalf of the assessee although notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee as per the acknowledgement available on records but still the hearing was adjourned. The next hearing was fixed on 10.03.2020 and notice of hearing was again sent to the assessee by RPAD which was duly served on the assessee as per AD available on record. In spite of all these, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on this date of hearing also and till this date, the defects were also not removed by the assessee and therefore, these 2 appeals were heard ex-parte qua the assessee.

3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned DR of the Revenue that since the appeals filed by the assessee are defective and in spite of defect memo issued by the Registry of the Tribunal, the defects are not removed by the assessee, the appeals of the assessee should not be admitted and dismissed as unadmitted and defective appeals.

4. We have considered these submissions of the learned DR of the Revenue and since this is a fact that defect memo was issued by the Registry of the Tribunal and in spite of that, the defects are not removed by the assessee, we feel it proper to dismiss these two appeals as unadmitted because of defects.

5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →