BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 6(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1421/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 July 2019AY 2010-113 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 found that the assessee had not removed the defects in the appeal memorandum. Citing a similar dismissal for a previous assessment year due to non-compliance, the Tribunal dismissed the current appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with certain defects, including unsigned grounds of appeal and a missing letter of authority. Despite multiple opportunities and a significant time lapse of over 4 years, the assessee failed to rectify these defects.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the assessee fails to remove defects in the memorandum of appeal despite sufficient opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(1),Section 144C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Sr. A.R
Hearing: 04.07.2019Pronounced: 04.07.2019

O R D E R

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short „Act‟), dated 29.12.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

A perusal of the record reveals that the appeal was filed by the assessee on 09.03.2015. As there were certain defects in the aforesaid appeal, therefore, the registry vide its letter dated 18.03.2015 had intimated the said defects to the assessee appellant, as under:

P a g e | M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1) “(i) As the Form No. 36 & its grounds of appeal and verification not signed by Managing Director. (ii) Letter of authority not filed. (iii) Respondent Column No. 4 & 11 in Form No. 36 not correctly filled.” Accordingly, the assessee as per Rule 12 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 was called upon to remove the defects within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the same. However, we find, that the assessee appellant despite lapse of a substantial time period of more than 4 years had failed to remove the aforesaid defects till date. The ld. D.R had placed on our record a copy of the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10. As is discernible from the order of the Tribunal, the appeal of the assessee for the said preceding year was dismissed as not maintainable, inter alia, for the reason, that the assessee despite sufficient opportunity had failed to remove the defects in the memorandum of appeal. In the backdrop of the failure on the part of the assessee to remove the aforesaid defects in the memorandum of appeal for the year under consideration, we are constrained to dismiss the same as not maintainable.

3. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2019 (M. Balaganesh) (Ravish Sood) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER भ ुंफई Mumbai; ददन ुंक 04.07.2019 Ps. Rohit P a g e | M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)

More judgments on Section 144C(1)

All 423 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →