CORE EDCUATION AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6352/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 2022AY 2013-143 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 in its current form because it was not signed by the official liquidator as required by Section 140 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the official liquidator to restore it by filing an amended form.

What were the facts?

The appellant company was under liquidation and commercially insolvent, with an official liquidator appointed by the Bombay High Court. The appeal was filed by the CEO of the erstwhile management, not the official liquidator.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by an erstwhile management of a company under liquidation is maintainable without being represented by the official liquidator.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140,Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K BENCH, MUMBAI

Appearances For the Appellant/ Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Michael Jerald Date of conclusion of hearing : 28.03.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 27.06.2022 O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal is directed against assessment order dated, 31.08.2017 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’) under Section 144C(5) of the Act.

2.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, none was present for the Appellant. The Ld. Departmental Representative appearing before us submitted that no one has been appearing for the Appellant for last several hearings as the Appellant- Company is under liquidation and therefore, the present appeal be dismissed. On perusal of record, we find that none has been appearing for the Appellant despite notice. Vide letter, dated 25.06.2019, an order dated, 30.10.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Company Petition No. 926 of 2014 has been placed on record according to which official liquidator was appointed and the Appellant-Company was ordered to be wound up as it was commercially insolvent. On the appointment of the official liquidator all powers of the board of directors, and key managerial personnel of the Appellant– Company got vested in the official liquidator who was authorised to institute or defend any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings in the name of on behalf of the Appellant- Company. The appeal in Form 36B available in our records has been signed by the Chief Executive Officer authorised by erstwhile management of the Company. The official liquidator

has not impleaded himself by filing revised Form 36B to comply with the requirements of Section 140 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal is not maintainable in the present form and is accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the official liquidator to get the same restored by filing amended Form 36B duly verified by the person authorised as per Section 140 of the Act.

3.

In terms of paragraph 2 above, present appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 27.06.2022.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →