SHRI SHIKHAR CHAND LALWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers

ITA 925/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 February 2023AY 2004-05Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 925 TO 927/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears :2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009-10 Shri Shikar Chand Lalwani L/H Smt. Umrao Devi Lalwani D-103, Gautam Marg, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPL 2150 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 928 TO 930/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2004-05, 6 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 observed that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals due to their inaction and carelessness. Consequently, the appeals were deemed infructuous.

What were the facts?

The appeals filed by the assessees had several defects, including short payment of appeal fees. Despite multiple opportunities and reminders, the assessees failed to remove these defects or appear before the tribunal. Their authorized counsel had also withdrawn their power.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the failure of the assessees to rectify defects in their appeals and appear before the tribunal, leading to the dismissal of their cases.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 925 TO 927/JP/2019 Shri Shikar Chand Lalwani

Hearing: 22/02/2023Pronounced: 23/02/2023

vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Theabove-mentioned appeals have been filed by the respective assesseesas named here in above, aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur passed on different dates for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 respectively. The bench has also observed that in all these appeals the litigation on the second round and in earlier set of litigation is based on the submission of the assessee the matter was remanded back to the file of the assessing officer.

In all these cases the registry observed that the appeal of the assessee has certain defects and the Registry intimated the same to the respective assessee to remove the defects. Amongst other defects the defects include the short payment of appeals fees. The same was duly communicated and the matter was fixed 17 times on board. The assessee is neither appearing nor removing the defects. The Bench has observed that the respective assessee so far has not removed the defects and SHIKHAR CHAND LALWANI VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR has also not submitted any comments on such defects. The details of the defects as is observed by the registry is reiterated for the sake of brevity here in below: Name of the ITA No. A.Y. CIT(A)-1, Defects assesssee Jaipur order observed by dated the Registry 1.Shikar Chand 925/JP/2019 2004-05 16-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.6451. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled Shikar Chand 926/JP/2019 2005-06 16-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.7000. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled Shikar Chand 927/JP/2019 2009-10 16-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.2000. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled 2.Smt. Umrao Devi 928/JP/2019 2004-05 22-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.1750. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled Smt. Umrao Devi 929/JP/2019 2005-06 22-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.1750. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled 2.Smt. Umrao Devi 930/JP/2019 2009-10 22-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.2000. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly SHIKHAR CHAND LALWANI VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR filled 3. Ashok Kumar 931/JP/2019 2004-05 16-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.1000. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled Ashok Kumar 932/JP/2019 2005-06 16-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.1550. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled Ashok Kumar 933/JP/2019 2009-10 16-04-2019 Short fee Lalwani Rs.1750. Col. No. 3A & B wrongly filled

It is pertinent to mention that before deciding the appeals by the Bench, it is imperative on the part of the respective assessee’s to remove the defects as raised by the Registry in the defect memo. In spite of sending the defect memos to respective assessee’s by the Registry, the defects were neither removed nor any communication was made by the respective assessee’s. It may be noted that the ld. Counsel authorized by the respective assessee’sto contest the case on their behalf has withdrawn his power. SHIKHAR CHAND LALWANI VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR 4. In such a situation, and considering the fact that the matter was listed on 17 times but the assessee has not bothered to come before us to represent their case on merits. Therefore, bench is of the considered view that the assessee do not want to pursue these appeals. 5. Based on these facts the Bench is refrained to adjudicate upon the appeals of the respective assessee’s and the Bench finds that the respective assessee’s are careless and do not want to pursue their appeals which become infructuous on account of non-removal of defects as raised by the Registry. Hence, in view of the above deliberation, the above mentioned appeals of the respective assessee’s are infructuous and treated as dismissed in default.

In the result, the appeals of theabove mentioned assessee are dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →