Ramu Musunuri Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
Ten Chances Ignored – Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Persistent Defects- Procedural Lapses Prove Costly – ITAT Declares Appeal Inadmissible
Assessee had filed appeal on 31.10.2024 against the CIT(A)’s order dated 22.08.2024. However, the appeal suffered from multiple defects – only Form 36 & grounds of appeal were filed, without enclosing mandatory documents such as the impugned order. The appeal filing fee challan was also not produced. Further, the appeal was beyond the prescribed limitation but no application for condonation of delay was filed.
The Registry had notified these defects on 06.11.2024, yet despite 10 listings for hearing, Assessee failed to cure the defects or submit any condonation petition. Considering the persistent defaults, the Tribunal held that the appeal in its present form was defective & liable to dismissal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
This ruling underscores that appeals before ITAT must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as filing prescribed annexures, proof of appeal fee & condonation petitions in case of delay. Persistent non-compliance results in outright dismissal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
The present appeal was e-filed by the assessee on 31.10.2022. From the perusal of the record, we find that the Registry of the Tribunal, vide notice dated 06.11.2024, notified certain defects in filing the present appeal. We find that, apart from filing Form No. 36 and the ground of appeal, no other documents/orders, as prescribed under the ITAT Rules, 1963, are annexed with this appeal. Further, from the perusal of the Form No. – 36 filed by the assessee, we find that the date of service of communication of the impugned order is 22.08.2024, and the assessee filed the appeal on 31.10.2024. Thus, it appears to have been filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. However, the assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of the delay. Furthermore, the assessee has also not filed the challan, which evidences the payment of appeal filing fees, before the Tribunal. Therefore, in sum and substance, it is evident that the assessee neither took any steps to cure the defects as notified by the Registry nor filed any application seeking condonation of the apparent delay in filing the present appeal.
