GANESHRAM UMANATH NAYAK, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 301/MUM/2014

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal filed by Ganeshram Umanath Nayak against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was initially found to be defective by the Tribunal's Registry, which notified the assessee of the defects on 10/02/2014. Despite this notification, the assessee did not take any steps to correct the defects. Furthermore, from the first hearing date on 26/08/2015 onwards, no representative for the assessee appeared, despite receiving notice. The Tribunal, considering the repeated non-appearance and the unrectified defects, concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and thus dismissed it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299435 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: ITAT Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.301/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Ganeshram Umanath Nayak 601, Blue Medows, Shyam Nagar Off J.V.L.R., Near Ganpati Temple Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400 060 PAN – ACQPN3828B ................ Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–19(2)(3), Mumbai ................Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ajay Singh Date of Hearing – 05/09/2022 Date of Order – 18/11/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal was filed by the assessee on 10/01/2014. From the perusal of the record, we find that the Registry of the Tribunal, vide notice dated 10/02/2014, notified certain defects in filing of the present appeal. We further find that apart from Form–36 and grounds of appeal, no other documents / orders, as prescribed under the ITAT Rules, 1963, is annexed with this appeal. The assessee also did not take any steps to cure the defects as notified by the Registry. Ganeshram Umanath Nayak ITA No.301/Mum./2014 Page | 2 2. We further find that since the first date of hearing i.e., 26/08/2015, no one has appeared for/on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Thus, from the conduct of the assessee, as is also evident from the record, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present appeal being defective is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 3. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/11/2022 Sd/- PRASHANT MAHARISHI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18/11/2022 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai