NITISH S. LODH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(2)(3), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7204/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2017AY 2010-112 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 dismissed the appeal as defective because the assessee failed to rectify the pointed-out defects. The assessee was given liberty to rectify and seek recall of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but defects were pointed out regarding the form and assessment year. The defects were not removed, and the assessment order pertained to a different assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the assessee fails to rectify defects pointed out by the registry, and the assessment order relates to a different assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR

Nitish S. Lodh Income Tax Officer R. No. 202, Bld No. T53 Ward No. 21(2)(3) Pratishtha Nagar, Sion Vs. Thane-421302 Mumbai-66 PAN No.AEMPL7476H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. None Revenue by .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 24-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-38, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-38/ITO 26(2)(3)/IT-292/2014-15 dated 20-08- 2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-25(1)(4), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 18-03-2014 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal was filed before Tribunal on 07- 12-2016 and a defect was pointed out to the assessee on 31-03-2017. The following are the defects: -.

“1. Appeal in form No.36 does not match with assessment order.

2.

Assessment order filled by appellant in AY 2011-12 instead of 2010-11.”

3.

At the time of hearing it is noticed that defects are not removed and the assessment order pertains to some other assessee namely Shri Nilesh J Solanki. As the defect is not removed by the assessee despite time allowed to him. I

Nitish S. Lodh A.Y: 10-11 dismiss the appeal as defective. However, the assessee is at liberty to get the defects rectified and can get the appeal recalled as per law. Appeal of assessee is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-06-2017.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →