Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders passed under section 143(3) for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The appeals were noted to be defective by the Registry.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the appeals were defective as the CIT(A)'s order was not certified and the grounds of appeal were not signed by the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee was absent when called. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
Key Issues
Defectiveness of appeal filings due to lack of certification and signature, and absence of the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH
ORDER
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against order both dated 12.04.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 16.12.2019 and 30.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) for Assessment Year 2017-18 and for Assessment 2018-19 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the outset, we have noted that, the Registry has pointed out that these appeals are defective because order of the ld. CIT(A) was not certified and grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was not signed by the assessee. The assessee was called absent in both the cases. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals of the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.