MANIPURI POWER TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6003/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 December 2019AY 2012-133 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 decided to proceed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to rectify defects. The appeals were dismissed for being defective and non-prosecuted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT but failed to appear for multiple hearings. The assessee also did not file the original grounds of appeal as required.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-appearance and failure to file required documents. The procedural defect of not filing grounds of appeal was also a key issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These appeals filed by the assessee on 24.11.2016 against the common impugned order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-1, Gurgaon in relation to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since common impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we heard the appeals together and are being disposed of by this common order, by dealing with (AY 2012- 13). 2. In these cases, Notice of hearing to the assessee were sent by the Registered AD post on 28.8.2019 for appearance on 16.10.2019, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On 16.10.2019 the Bench directed the Registry to issue defect memo and notice for hearing to the assessee by RPAD for 03.12.2019. But on 03.12.2019 assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment and also not rectified the defect. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeals exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

3.

We have also noticed that assessee filed the appeal on 24.11.2016 and defect memo was issued to the assessee for filing the original ground of appeal raised by the assessee before the ITAT which was not filed till date. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are not available with both the Members. However, Ld. DR also pointed out that assessee has not filed any ground of appeal meaning thereby that assessee has not filed any ground of appeal as required under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal of the assessee is defective and is dismissed as such.

4.

Following the consistent view taken in (AY 2012-13), as aforesaid, the (AY 2013-14) also stand dismissed.

5.

In the interest of justice, we are giving liberty to the assessee, if so advised, assessee can move application for recalling this order and establish sufficient cause for non-appearance before the Bench and also ensure that the assessee has rectified the defect by filing the original grounds of appeal of two sets for the Bench and one set for the Department, then the plea of the assessee will be considered as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →