What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective because the defects pointed out by the registry were not removed. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration after rectifying the defects.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order for AY 2017-18. The appeal was found to be defective by the registry at the time of filing. No representative appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when it suffers from defects that have not been rectified by the appellant.

Ramesh Chander Bedi, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 06/07/2023Pronounced: 06/07/2023

ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the dated 31.03.2023 pertaining to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. Order is bad in law in and facts of the case 2. Because the addition in taxable income on a account of cash deposit in bank bad in law and facts of the case.

That no reasonable opportunity was given to assessee to explain the case. Total tax effect 15,73,894.00 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice. On perusal of the record we find that the appeal is defective and the defect has been pointed out by registry at the time of filing of the appeal. The defect has not been removed hence this appeal is dismissed as defective.

However, the assessee is given liberty to approach the Tribunal for the restoration of the appeal after removing the defect. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed. 6. Decision announced in the open court on 06.07.2023.

RAMESH CHANDER BEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 69(5), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments