PANACHE EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
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.
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
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)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026