NARAYAN H LADHA,MUMBAI vs. CIT 24,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 394/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2017AY 2009-102 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 in limine due to the assessee's failure to appear and the numerous defects in the appeal filing. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a revision order passed by the CIT. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal and had significant defects in their appeal filing. The assessee also agreed with the deficiencies pointed out by the CIT.

What were the issues?

Validity of the CIT's revision order and the assessee's appeal filing defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Hearing: 23.5.2017Pronounced: 23.5.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.3.2013 passed by learned CIT-24, Mumbai u/s. 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee is challenging the validity of revision order passed by learned CIT.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice by registered post was sent to the assessee on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We noticed that the revision order was passed by learned CIT on 26.3.3013 but the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 27.1.2016. Though the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, we notice that the same is not reasonable. Further, the assessee has not shown the name of respondent properly. Date of communication of order appealed against has also been mentioned incorrectly. We noticed that the defects pointed out by the Registry have not been properly corrected by the assessee till date. Hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.

4.

On merits, we noticed that the issues pointed out by learned CIT has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Further the assessee has agreed with learned CIT with regard to the deficiencies pointed out by learned CIT and in effect, agreed with the revision order.

5.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee and accordingly dismiss the same.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 23.5.2017.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →