VARUN SHIPPING CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2126/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 January 2023AY 2011-123 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 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because no representative appeared for the appellant, and the Interim Resolution Professional or Official Liquidator had not been impleaded in the proceedings. The appellant was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if desired.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s Varun Shipping Company Limited, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The appellant company was succeeded by other entities under a scheme of amalgamation and is now undergoing liquidation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to the appellant company's liquidation and the absence of proper representation before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)(ii),Section 144C(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, J BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 17.01.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 27.12.2016, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2011-12 whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 15.05.2015, passed under Section 143(3)(ii) read with Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

When the appeal was taken for hearing none appeared for the Appellant. A perusal of order sheet shown that this has been the case for several hearings. In response to the query from IT(TP)A No. 2126//Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 the Bench, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellant was succeeded by Varun Global Ltd. and Varun Resource Ltd. under scheme of amalgamation and both the aforesaid companies are undergoing liquidation. We note that the appeal was filed in 2017 and none has appeared on behalf of the Appellant since then. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and/or the Official Liquidator (OL) have not come on record. The Memorandum of Appeal in Form No.36 available in our record is the one signed by the erstwhile Director of the Appellant. The IRP/OL have not impleaded themselves in the present proceedings before the Tribunal by filing revised Form No.36. Hence, the present appeal in the present form is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the present appeal as not maintainable with a liberty given to IRP/OL to prefer Miscellaneous Application along with revised Form No. 36, if so desired, within the time prescribed under law.

3.

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 17.01.2023.

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →