SUDHEER OMPRAKASH BAHL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing – 01.11.2017 Date of Order – 10.11.2017

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.

Captioned appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 46 days and without enclosing the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which was sought to be challenged. Therefore, a notice was issued to the assessee pointing out the aforesaid defects and requiring the assessee to remove the defects within 10 days. When the appeal was first posted for hearing on 22nd August 2017, though, the assessee requested for adjournment and on his request the appeal was adjourned to 17th October 2017, however, he did not remove the defects pointed out by the Registry. Thereafter, in subsequent dates of 2 Sudheer Omprakash Bahl hearing of appeal, no one was present for the assessee. In fact, till date, the assessee has not removed the defects pointed out by the Registry either by explaining the delay in filing the appeal or furnished copy of the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which is under challenge in the present appeal. In fact, as seen from the record, in spite of notice of hearing issued through RPAD, the assessee has not appeared when the appeal was called for hearing today. Since, the assessee has not removed the defects pointed out by the Registry, the appeal being a defective one cannot be admitted, hence, is dismissed in limine.