BLUE ENGINEERING PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-I, FARIDABAD
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 noted that the assessee did not rectify the defects in the appeal and did not appear for any of the hearings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as defective.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT for AY 2013-14, but it had defects. The registry issued a defect notice, which the assessee failed to rectify despite multiple hearing opportunities.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be admitted and heard when the assessee fails to rectify defects and remain absent despite several opportunities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in 1. of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 10532/2016-17 dated 27.02.2019 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.09.2016 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-I, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
At the outset, we find the appeal was filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 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 18.11.2020, 19.11.2020, 27.11.2020, 23.5.2022, 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 Page | 1 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. 2013-14 is hereby dismissed as defective.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as defective.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026