CHRIST MISSION EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE MINORITY TRUST,PATNA vs. CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 57/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 May 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual hearing, noting a lack of adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures. Based on this conduct and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Christ Mission Educational And Welfare Minority Trust, filed four appeals against orders dated 12.12.2024 from the Addl./JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai. The appeals pertain to assessment years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022. The assessee's AR appeared virtually and did not adhere to the SOP, including improper attire and chewing tobacco/pan.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed based on the conduct of the assessee's authorized representative during a virtual hearing and whether the stay granted against the outstanding demand should be vacated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, PATNA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Hearing: 08/09/2025Pronounced: 08/09/2025

O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM : These are four appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Id. Addl./JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai all dated 12.12.2024 for the assessment years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022, respectively.

2.

Shri Viveka Nand, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee through virtual court, was not in uniform as per the SOP for appearing in the online court. Even the ld. AR was also chewing tobacco/Pan during his appearance in virtual court. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere in the orders of the lower authorities and, thus, the same are upheld for all the years under consideration. Further the stay granted against the outstanding demand arising out of all the four appeals of the assessee are directed to be vacated.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →