2018 (5) TMI 1789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case, the ITAT did not decide the appeal on the merits as it is mandated to but rather rejected for non-prosecution. Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s Rules and the other provisions of both the Income Tax Act and Rules indicate that the ITAT has to decide the appeals or matters before it on the merits. ITAT’s failure to do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the AppellAnt : Mr.Arvind Kumar and Mr.Harshvardhan Sharma, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr.Ashok Manchanda and Mr.Raghvendra K.Singh, Advocates for Revenue. ORDER Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, counsel for respondent accepts notice. With the consent of the parties, the appeals were heard finally. The appellant s grievance is that the ITAT vide its imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urt titled Liladhar T Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Customs Tax Appeal No.915 of 2016 delivered on 25.01.2017 for this purpose. This Court is of the opinion that those judgments cannot afford the appellant any comfort. Section 254(2) of the Act was advisably amended to curtail extended period of four years which had been provided to either class of litigants to approach the ITAT for a rectificatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X