MONOTONA TYRES LTD,THANE vs. CIT-6, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2733/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2022AY 2009-103 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 because the Form No. 36 was not signed by the authorized person (the IRP) as per the NCLT order. However, liberty was granted to file a revised form.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Monotona Tyres Ltd., was undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process as per NCLT order. The appeal before the ITAT was signed by a Director, but the NCLT order had dissolved the Board of Directors, with an IRP taking over management.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by a company undergoing insolvency resolution is maintainable if signed by a former director instead of the authorized resolution professional.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh, DR
Hearing: 21.02.2022Pronounced: 23.02.2022
1.

Monotona Tyres Ltd. against the orders passed by the Commissioner of income- tax (Appeals)-6 Mumbai (the learned CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 20th February, 2014 under section 263 of the Act. The assessee has challenged the impugned order.

2.

At the time of hearing the record shows that the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order dated 30th November, 2018 under section 9 of IBC,

3.

On perusal of form No.36, it was found that it has been signed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma stated to be the Director of the assessee company. On passing of the order by NCLT , the Board of Director of the company ceased to exist and the IRP as directed by the committee of the creditors substitute it. Before us, as form No.36 is verified by the Director of the company and not by the IRP, therefore same is not signed by the person authorised to sign Return of Income of Assessee company . Thus appeal is not maintainable as it is not verified properly.

4.

In view of this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the assessee/ IRP that if they would like to pursue the matter, the revised from No. 36 duly signed by the person who is authorized to file return of income on behalf of the assessee may be submitted along with application for recall of the above order.

5.

Accordingly, if the appeal is filed which is in compliance with Rule 12AA and 51(b) of The Income tax Rules, 1962 , the appeal would be admitted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.02.2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →