SRI. MATHAI JOSEPH THOMAS,MUNNAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , ALUVA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the appeals were invalid and non-est due to the persistent defects and lack of proper authentication. Consequently, the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed two appeals with a delay and significant defects, including unsigned and undated memorandum of appeal. Despite multiple opportunities and notices, the assessee failed to rectify these defects or appear before the tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed with significant procedural defects, including delay and unsigned/unverified documents, are maintainable before the tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal
Appellant by: ----- None ----- Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 13.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee directed against the dismissal of it’s appeals contesting it’s assessments under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter) dated 24.12.2010 and 09.03.2013 for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Department [CIT(A)], vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 18.07.2022.
None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when the appeals were called for hearing despite due notice, nor is there any adjournment motion.The appeals, filed on 26.09.2022, are with a delay of 10 days, unaccompanied by any condonation petition. That apart, Form 36, i.e., the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, is neither signed nor dated nor verified. These defects were communicated to the assessee vide defect memo dated 01.10.2022. Further, there being no representation by the assessee, the fact of the appeals being out of time and ‘defective’ was required by the Bench to be communicated again to the
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026