P.VIJAY KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO BUSINESS WARD XV(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1860/CHNY/2018Status: PendingITAT Chennai26 October 2018AY 2006-072 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 held that since the assessee failed to rectify the defects despite receiving a notice, the appeal could not be sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The tribunal had previously sent a notice pointing out defects that needed rectification, which were not addressed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be sustained when the assessee fails to rectify defects pointed out by the tribunal after due notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]

For Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER When this appeal was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that notice for hearing pointing out defects which were to be rectified was sent to the assessee by Registered Post and acknowledgment card is available on record. The defects pointed out in the said notice were as under:-

ITA No.1860 /2018 :- 2 -:

(i) Fees not paid under the sub head ‘’Others’’. (ii) Form 26AS, to be filed’’.

Since assessee has not cared to rectify the defects despite notice, the appeal cannot survive.

2.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →