VINOD,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5753/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 March 2023AY 2010-113 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 held that the appeal was defective due to the non-removal of defects and the assessee's casual and negligent approach. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2010-11. The appeal was found to be time-barred by seven days and not filed in the proper form. Despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to remove these defects.

What were the issues?

Whether a defective appeal, with unrectified defects and a lack of response from the assessee, can be admitted for adjudication on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Respondent: Shri D.K. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.03.2023Pronounced: 31.03.2023

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 23.03.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The Registry has notified the following two defects in the appeal by the assessee:

i) The appeal is time barred by seven days; & ii) Appeal is not filed in proper form.

3.

Despite the fact that a notice was issued as early as on 17.10.2019 requiring the assessee to remove the defects, till date, defects have not been removed.

4.

Besides the aforesaid defects, the Bench had further found that copy of the assessment order enclosed to the Memorandum of Appeal is incomplete. Therefore, vide order dated 13.07.2022, the Bench had directed the assessee to remove the defect. However, till date, the assessee has not filed a complete set of assessment order.

5.

Today, when the appeal was called out for hearing, neither the assessee was present nor there is any application seeking adjournment.

These facts clearly reveal the casual and negligent approach of the assessee. Despite lapse of more than two years, since, the assessee has not removed the defects, the appeal, being a defective appeal, cannot be admitted for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, I treat the appeal as defective and dismiss it in limine without admitting the appeal for adjudication. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal after removing the defects in the appeal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →