CENTENARY BAPTIST CHURCH,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) 1(4), HYDERABAD

In these two appeals, the Registry has pointed out that the defect notices issued by the Registry to the assessee on 21.02.2024 were not rectified. The defects pointed out by the Registry are to the following effect :

The Registry has also brought to our notice that as per the procedure contemplated for filing of the appeal, the assessee was required to upload the duly signed copy of Memorandum of Appeal in prescribed format after digitally signed it. Despite the opportunities granted, the defects have not been removed by the assessee and the notices for removing the defects were also served through the e-mail at the address given in Form 36. The notices were also given to the assessee for fixing the appeal for hearing on 20.03.2024.

Today when the matter was called upon, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the appeals are required to be dismissed as the defects have not been removed and further there is no application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeals of the assessee.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. As per the rules of the Tribunal, after the receipt of the appeals, the same are required to be scrutinized by the Registry, and after the scrutiny, if there are any defects, then notice for fixing them are to be issued to assessee. In the present appeals, on examination, it was found that one of the appeals filed by the assessee is barred by limitation for a period of 260 days. simultaneously, the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the assessee was not duly verified by the person who was authorized under the Act by digitally signing the appeal. Further, the other documents as required to accompany the Memorandum of Appeal were also not filed.

In the present appeals, as mentioned hereinabove, the defect notices were given to the assessee on the registered email. Despite receipt of due notice, the assessee failed to remove the defects within the stipulated time. In the light of the above, the Tribunal is left with no other option but to proceed in accordance with law. On perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal and other documents, we found that the appeals are not properly filed as contemplated under Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and 3 Section 253 of the Income Tax Act. As the assessee failed to remove the defects, we have no other option except to dismiss the appeals being not maintainable and defective. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed.