ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GOLDSTAR CEMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6177/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 January 2016AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as defective and not maintainable. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous and barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order, but the grounds of appeal were unsigned, making it defective. The assessee also filed a cross-objection which was barred by limitation and lacked a condonation application.

What were the issues?

Whether an unsigned appeal is maintainable before the ITAT. Whether a cross-objection filed beyond the limitation period without a condonation application is maintainable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 6177/Del/2013
CO No. 261/DEL/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Date of Hearing : 07-01-2016 Date of Order : 07-01-2016

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM

1.

The Revenue has filed this Appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection against the impugend Order dated 19.9.2013 relevant to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

At the time of hearing, the Bench noticed that the Revenue has filed the present Appeal against the impugend order by rasing the Grounds of Appeal dated 12.11.2013 which was unsigned, which is contrary to the Rules. Therefore, the present Appeal is “Defective” and is not maintainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is dismissed as such. But in the interest of justice, if so advised, the Revenue is at liberty to file the Application to recall this order, after rectifying the defect.

3.

Since we have already dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal being “Defective”, as aforesaid, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee has become infructuous and dismissed as such. Even otherwise, we note that the Cross Objection is barred by limitation and there is a delay of 579 days in filing the Cross Objection which was communicated to the Assessee. Despite knowing fully well about the limitation period, the Assessee has not filed any Application for Condonation of delay, therefore, on this account the Cross Objection is dismissed. But in the interest of justice, if so advised, the Assessee is at liberty to file the Application to recall this order, alongwith Application for Condonation of Delay.

4.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07/1/2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →