KENNY DCOSTA,ISRAEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NARIMAN POINT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 163/MUM/2025Status: HeardITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ( (Judicial Member)4 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 form was invalid due to being unsigned and unverified. Notices sent to the assessee were returned as 'address not known'. Therefore, the appeal was rejected in-limine.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed against the assessment order for AY 2015-16, pursuant to a DRP direction. The assessee's appeal form (No. 36) was neither signed nor verified. A defect notice was issued but not rectified, and no one appeared for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed in an unsigned and unverified form is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Respondent: Mr. P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14/05/2025Pronounced: 19/05/2025

This appeal has been filed in prescribed form No. 36 against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for assessment year 2015-16, pursuant to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 17.10.2024.

2.

At the outset, it is observed from the record that the form No. 36 i.e. form prescribed for filing appeal to ITAT, filed by the assessee is neither signed nor verified on behalf of the assessee. In this regard, a defect notice was issued to the assessee, but said defect has not been removed. Also despite notifying, none appeared for the hearing dated 14.05.2025. The notices sent for intimating defect as well as notice sent for the hearing dated 14.05.2025 have returned back with the comment of the postal authorities as “address not known”. The unsigned and unverified form of appeal cannot be treated as valid form of appeal. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal filed by the assessee is rejected in-limine with liberty to the assessee to file another appeal in accordance with provision of law, if so advised.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected as un- admitted.

Order pronounced by way of display on notice board under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 19/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/05/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.

3. CIT

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →