2016 (1) TMI 1465 - AT - Income Tax

Defective appeal - HELD THAT - Bench noticed that the Revenue has filed the present Appeal against the impugend order by rasing the Grounds of Appeal dated 12.11.2013 which was unsigned, which is contrary to the Rules. Therefore, the present Appeal is Defective and is not maintainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is dismissed as such. But in the interest of justice, if so advised, the Revenue is at liberty to file the Application to recall this order, after rectifying the defect. Since we have already dismissed the Revenue s Appeal being Defective , as aforesaid, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee has become infructuous and dismissed as such. Even otherwise, we note that the Cross Objection is barred by limitation and there is a delay of 579 days in filing the Cross Objection which was communicated to the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed by Revenue against impugned order dated 19.9.2013 for assessment year 2008-09. Defect in Appeal grounds being unsigned. Cross Objection filed by Assessee. Delay of 579 days in filing Cross Objection.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI, involved the consideration of an Appeal filed by the Revenue against an impugned order dated 19.9.2013 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. During the hearing, it was noted that the Appeal filed by the Revenue was defective as the Grounds of Appeal dated 12.11.2013 were unsigned, which was deemed contrary to the Rules. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal as "Defective" and declared it not maintainable in the eyes of the law. However, the Revenue was given the opportunity to rectify the defect by filing an Application to recall the order, if advised, in the interest of justice.

Regarding the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, it was observed that since the Revenue's Appeal was dismissed as defective, the Cross Objection became infructuous and was also dismissed. Furthermore, the Cross Objection was found to be barred by limitation with a significant delay of 579 days in its filing, which was duly communicated to the Assessee. Despite being aware of the limitation period, the Assessee failed to file any Application for Condonation of delay. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Cross Objection on this ground. Similar to the Revenue, the Assessee was granted the liberty to file an Application to recall the order, along with an Application for Condonation of Delay, if deemed necessary in the interest of justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the Appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in the aforementioned manner. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 07/1/2016.