What did the Tribunal hold?

The appeal was found to be time-barred by seven days. Since the assessee did not file a petition for condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. The notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved with an endorsement that the assessee is not known.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to being time-barred and the absence of a condonation petition.

Mudhit M.Gupta vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Hearing: 07.02.2018Pronounced: 13.04.2018

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai dated 15.02.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

Notice issued by the Registry through Registered post was returned unserved with an endorsement by Postal Authorities that assessee is not (A.Y: 2011-12) Mudhit M. Gupta known. In the circumstances, we dispose off this appeal on hearing the Ld.DR on merits.

At the outset, we find that the appeal is time barred by seven days and assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay and affidavit explaining the reasons for filing the appeal with the delay of seven days. Therefore, in the absences of petition for condonation of delay this appeal is dismissed in-limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th April, 2018.

MUDHIT M.GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-17(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments