HANIA TRADE INVEST PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(3), MUMBAI

The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the appeal documents were signed digitally by the company itself in its own name and the same was filed before Learned CIT(A) on 07-04-2016. Admittedly, the same is in contravention of sec. 140 of the Act. However, on noticing the said defect, the assessee has filed another set of appeal papers on 29-04-2016 itself, duly signed digitally by the director Shri Lalit Nandlal Gupta. He submitted that the defect pointed out by Learned CIT(A) has since been rectified. However, the Learned CIT(A) has proceeded to dispose of the appeal without taking

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The assessee has furnished before us the copy of Form no.35 dated 29-04-2016, which was signed by the director Shri Lalit Nandlal Gupta. Admittedly, the defect pointed out by Learned CIT(A) has since been rectified by the assessee by filing revised Form No.35. We notice that the Learned CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the revised Form No.35 filed by the assessee. Hence the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits.

However, it is not clear as to whether a new appeal number has been allotted to the revised Form no.35 filed by the assessee. If new appeal number has been allotted, then one of the appeals shall become infructuous. The LdCIT(A) may take suitable decision in this regard.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.