PARESH BHAVANJI VORA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 30(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6105/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 August 2017AY 2010-113 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 observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to the failure to rectify defects and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was considered incomplete and invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file the 'Grounds of appeal' in the prescribed format and did not appear for multiple hearings. The appeal was also not rectified despite a defect memo being issued.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be proceeded with when the assessee fails to rectify defects and does not appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan, Sr. D.R

आदेश / O R D E R

PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-41, Mumbai, dated 11.07.2016, which in 2 Paresh Bhavanji Vora Vs. DCIT itself arises from the assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 09.03.2015.

2.

That as the assessee in his appeal filed on 13.10.2016 had failed to file the ‘Grounds of appeal’ in ‘Form No. 36’, in triplicate, therefore, a defect memo was issued on 06.07.2017, and the assessee was directed to rectify the defect within a period of ten days.

3.

That the hearing of the appeal was fixed for 14.08.2017, on which date neither the assessee or his authorised representative appeared, nor any request for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal was filed before us. That in all fairness the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 29.08.2017 and a notice intimating the fresh date of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee.

4.

That though the assessee was put to notice of the fresh date of hearing of the appeal, however, this time again the assessee chose not to put up an appearance. Still further, it was observed that the assessee despite having been intimated way back about the defect in the ‘Memorandum of appeal’, however failed to rectify the same till date.

5.

We thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid state of affairs are thus persuaded to observe that the assessee who had failed to rectify the defect in the ‘Memorandum of appeal’ despite lapse of substantial time period, can safely be held to be not interested in prosecuting his appeal. We are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to rectify the defect in the ‘Memorandum of appeal’, therefore, the same can safely be characterized as an incomplete and invalid appeal,

3 Paresh Bhavanji Vora Vs. DCIT which thus cannot be proceeded with. We thus in the light of the aforesaid facts dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/08/2017.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →