What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the appeal could not be entertained due to the unrectified defects. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The assessee failed to respond or rectify defects in Form No. 36 and the grounds of appeal, despite being notified. The defects were pointed out by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be entertained if the prescribed forms and grounds of appeal contain defects that are not rectified by the appellant.

Shri. Arumugan Biragalathan vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

Hearing: 31.07.2018Pronounced: 01.08.2018

: अपीलाथ# क& ओर से/ Appellant by None : $%यथ# क& ओर से /Respondent by Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT : सुनवाई क& तार"ख/Date of Hearing 31.07.2018 घोषणा क& तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

When this appeal was called up for hearing, it was noticed that the assessee despite being notified defects in Form No.36 and non-filing of grounds of appeal that were filed before the Ld.CIT(A), has not responded or rectified the defects. Unless, the defects pointed out by the Revenue are rectified, the appeal cannot be entertained. :- 2 -:

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as defective.

Order pronounced on the 1st day of August, 2018, in Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SHRI. ARUMUGAN BIRAGALATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 19(2), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments