ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI vs. SREE DAKSHA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD., COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2066/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 November 2017AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue failed to rectify the defects and the appeals were time-barred beyond the condoned period, the appeals were not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals before the ITAT, which were found to be time-barred by 9 days. The Revenue filed condonation petitions for only 5 days delay and failed to rectify other defects pointed out by the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when they are time-barred and defects are not rectified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy

Hearing: 09.11.2017Pronounced: 27.11.2017

I.T.A. Nos. 2066 and 2067/Mds/2017 Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Sree Daksha property Developers Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., No.1, Gandhi Layout, Sri Income Tax Building, Race Course Veera’s Tower, Maruthamalai Road, Road, Coimbatore 641 018. Vadavalli, Coimbaotre 641 046. [PAN: AAOCS1220R] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Benny John, CIT - DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 09.11.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai both dated 31.05.2017 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14.

2.

When the appeals were taken up for hearing on 09.11.2017, the Bench has noticed that the both the appeals filed by the Revenue are time barred by 9 days and condonation petitions were filed to condone the delay of five days only. Defect notice was duly served on the Revenue by pointing out the defects in bold letters as well as hand-written, as under: “DEFECT: APPEAL TIME BARRED BY 9 DAYS. CONDONATION PETITION FILED FOR 5 DAYS [Hand-written] – FORM 35, STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE CIT(A) TO BE FILED IN DUPLICATE” I.T.A. No. 2067/Mds/2017 “DEFECT: APPEAL TIME BARRED BY 9 DAYS. CONDONATION PETITION FILED FOR 5 DAYS. FORM 35, STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE CIT(A) TO BE FILED IN DUPLICATE [Hand-written] – One more copy of grounds of appeal before ITAT to be filed.” Since the Revenue has not rectified the defects notified by the Tribunal in the Defect Memo, both the appeals filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →