BLUE PRECISION LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD -11(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4281/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)2 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective. The tribunal noted that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunities to rectify the defects but failed to do so.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with defects. Despite multiple hearing dates and defect notices, the assessee failed to rectify the defects or appear before the tribunal. The revenue was represented.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-rectification of defects and absence of the assessee. The primary issue is the procedural compliance of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr
Hearing: 30/10/2023Pronounced: 31/10/2023

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 124/2014-15 dated 25.02.2019 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2014 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

At the outset, we find the appeal was filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 before us on 10.05.2019 with certain defects. The registry had issued the defect notice to the assessee on 10.05.2019 itself. The said defect is not yet rectified by the assessee by filing the requisite documents that were called for in the defect notice. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 24.5.2022, 30.8.2022, 8.12.2022, 6.3.2023, 16.5.2023, 3.8.2023 and on 30.10.2023 i.e. today. Notice of hearing was duly issued to the assessee at the registered address mentioned in Form 36 but on none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. Since sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee and the assessee had not even taken the minimum effort of even rectifying the defects, we do not deem it fit to wait for the presence of assessee. Since the defects are not removed by the assessee, the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2011- 12 is hereby dismissed as defective.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as defective.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →