M/S HIMACHAL TRADING COMPANY,HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, HAMIRPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1299/CHANDI/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 March 2018AY 2010-112 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 presumed the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal due to the persistent non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed based on this presumption and supporting case law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but failed to deposit the required tribunal fee. Despite being notified of this defect, the assessee did not rectify it for approximately 14 months.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements like depositing tribunal fees, even after being notified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 21/03/2018Pronounced: 27/03/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1299/Chd/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

M/s Himachal Trading Company Vs. The ITO Near Regional Hospital Income Tax Office Hamirpur Shimla

PAN No. AAEFH6633C

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh

Date of hearing : 21/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018

ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of

the Ld. CIT(A), Palampur dt. 30/08/2016.

2.

The record shows that the appeal was filed by the assessee on 11/01/2017. It has

been brought to the notice of the assessee regarding the non deposit of

Tribunal fee in the minor head “self assessment (300)”. This defect has been

brought to the notice of the assessee on 11/01/2017. In spite of lapse of

approximately 14 months the assessee has not cured the defect.

Hence, it can be safely presumed that the assessee may not be serious in

pursuing the appeal filed. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case

of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya

Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax

Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc.

3.

Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able

to cure the defect and show that there was a reasonable cause for not doing so, it

would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by making an appropriate prayer.

The order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing.

4.

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 27/03/2018 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →