SHAF BROADCAST (AOP),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4333/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 October 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 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 found that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as per legal requirements. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to its defective nature.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with several defects and the defects were not rectified despite multiple notices. The assessee also failed to appear for hearings on numerous occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-rectification of defects and non-prosecution by the assessee.

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, ‘G‘ BENCH

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Hearing: 18/10/2023Pronounced: 23/10/2023

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y. 2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, Delhi in appeal No.57/17-18/201/14-15 dated 22.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 28.03.2014 by the ld. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. In fact this appeal was filed before us on 6.6.2018 and the memorandum of appeal contained various defects by way of not annexing certain mandatory documents. Accordingly, a defect notice was issued by the registry to the assessee on 4.7.2018. The said defects were not rectified by the assessee as on the date of hearing of this appeal today. The case was first listed for hearing on 4.8.2021 and thereafter, it was listed on several occasions o 25.10.21, 5.1.22, 28.3.22, 14.6.22, 21.9.22, 15.12.22, 20.3.23, 28.3.23,15.5.23, 27.7.23 and finally on 18.10.23 (i.e. today). Only on two occasions i.e. 14.6.22 and 21.9.22, the authorized representative of the assessee Shri Anuj Jain, Advocate was present and sought adjournment. After this date, we find that the assessee had not bothered to either rectify the defects or ensure the presence of the authorized representative for representation in this appeal before us. In these circumstances, we do not deem it fit to keep this appeal pending before us as assessee does not seem to be interested in prosecuting this appeal in the manner known to law. Hence we deem it fit to dismiss the appeal of the assessee as defective.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as defective. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/10/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated 23/10/2023 A K Keot Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. The CIT(A), Delhi. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Delhi 5. 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →