What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and in default.

The assessee filed an appeal in January 2014 but failed to remove defects despite receiving notice. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to failure to rectify defects and absence during the hearing.

Chandulal Mehta & Co. P.Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Bharati Singh (DR)

Hearing: 24.10.2016Pronounced: 24.10.2016

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Bharati Singh (DR) Date of hearing : 24.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 24.10.2016 O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

This appeal came up for hearing on 24.10.2016. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite waiting for sufficient time. This appeal was filed on 07.01.2014. The assessee has not removed the defect/objection in filing of appeal despite notice. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal. Hence, we left no option except to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as well as in default.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 24th October, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated 24/10/2016 S.K.PS आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत , AY 2008-09 M/s Chandulal Mehta & Co. Pvt. Ltd

CHANDULAL MEHTA & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments