VIJAYA BANK,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO (TDS), ALLAHABAD

ITA 127/ALLD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 January 2021AY 2010-113 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 held that the appeal is not valid as Vijaya Bank no longer exists and the successor bank (Bank of Baroda) has not been substituted. The procedure for substitution under Rule 26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 was not followed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijaya Bank, merged with Bank of Baroda. Notices were sent to the successor bank, but there was no response or representation from the assessee. The original appeal was filed by Vijaya Bank.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by a merged entity is valid without substitution of the successor entity. Whether the procedure for substitution of parties in an appeal has been followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 26 of ITAT Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT (DR)

Hearing: 14.01.2021Pronounced: 14.01.2021

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.02.2017 of CIT(A)-Allahabad for the A.Y. 2010-11.

At the outset, it transpires from the record that on 23.11.2020 it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee Bank has already merged with the Bank of Baroda.

The ld. DR has also placed on record the fresh address and particulars of Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda. Accordingly, fresh notice was issued to the assessee (successor Bank) and a defect memo was also issued. Despite all these efforts neither there is a response from the assessee nor any representation. Therefore, in view of the fact that Vijaya Bank is no more inexistence but merge with the Bank of Baroda the present appeal of the assessee without substitution by the successor and without filing the revised Form No.36 cannot be treated as a valid appeal. Rule 26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 provides the procedure for substitution of the assessee and filing of the revised Form No.36 which reads as under: “26. Where an assessee whether he be an appellant or the respondent to an appeal dies or is adjudicated insolvent or in the case of a company being wound up, the appeal shall not abate and may, if the assessee was the appellant, be continued by, and if he was the respondent be continued against, the executor, administrator or other legal representative of the assessee or by or against the assignee, receiver or liquidator, as the case may be: Provided that: (i) The assessee files a revised Form No. 36 duly filled up giving revised name of the party duly verified in the same manner as required by rule 47 of Income Tax Rules, 1962; (ii) The revised Form No. 36 shall specify the appeal number as originally assigned or, in the event of non-availability of such number on the date of filing the appeal shall be mentioned in the covering letter to enable the Registrar to place fresh Form No. 36 in the original file.]”

In the absence of revised Form No.36 and substitution of the assessee by the successor the present appeal stands dismissed being invalid.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →