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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2601/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2022AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the revised appeal papers filed by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine because the initial appeal documents were not signed by a director as required by Section 140 of the Act. However, the assessee subsequently filed revised appeal papers duly signed by a director.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for a procedural defect that was subsequently rectified by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Jatin Basant
Hearing: 30.06.2022Pronounced: 30.06.2022

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by Learned CIT(A)-20, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of LdCIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine on the reasoning that the appeal documents have not been signed by either by the Managing Director or any other director as per requirement of sec. 140 of the Act.

2.

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

2 Hania Trade Invest Pvt. Ltd. cognizance of the appeal papers filed on 29.04.2016. Accordingly he submitted that the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) may be set aside and the Ld CIT(A) may be directed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2022.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →