PANACHE EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6539/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 December 2022AY 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 was not maintainable as it was signed by a director who no longer had the authority to represent the company. The IRP, despite being aware, failed to take necessary action.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's appeal was filed by its director. However, the company had undergone insolvency resolution, and its management had been transferred to an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP was notified but did not appear or take steps to substitute the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to the change in the company's management following insolvency proceedings and the failure of the authorized representative to act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Hearing: 08.12.2022Pronounced: 08.12.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 28th August, 2018, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the DCIT-4(3) (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 8th March, 2014 was dismissed.

3.

Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee on earlier occasions. It is also seen that now notice have also been sent to the Insolvency Resolution Professional appointed by NCLT, who is authorized to sign and verify the appeal. The Insolvency Resolution Professional, despite being appointed by NCLT, despite being aware about the pendency of this appeal, has neither remained present for this appeal nor took efforts to substitute form no.36. As the verification of the appeal is made by the Director of the company, who are no longer entitled to do so, IRP has failed to substitute it, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. However, in the event if the committee of creditors so decides, instructs IRP to file this appeal, we give liberty to the IRP to submit the appeal

4.

In view of the above, as per above directions, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2022.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →