M/S. KARUTURI GLOBAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2658/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 October 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Vice President), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)4 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 as it was not pursued by the appointed liquidator and no amended Form 36B was filed. The Managing Director becomes functus officio upon liquidation, and only the liquidator can pursue the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Karuturi Global Ltd., was under liquidation. The appeal was filed by the MD, but it was later revealed that a liquidator had been appointed. The liquidator had not filed an amended Form 36B or authorized anyone to represent the company's case.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the appeal when the assessee company is under liquidation and the liquidator has not been substituted or properly represented the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri Somnath S. Ukkali, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

1.

This appeal is filed by Karuturi Global Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2015-16 against the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 28.10.2019.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was found that this appeal is filed by Mr. Sai Rama Krishna Karuturi, MD of the company. Vide email dated 28.10.2025 it has been mentioned that the above company is under liquidation. The Liquidator has also filed a letter of authorisation in the name of one CA. In the memo for adjournment submitted at the time of earlier hearings in 2022, it is mentioned that the above company is under liquidation and Liquidator is appointed. However, the neither the Liquidator has filed an amended Form 36B nor instructed anybody to represent its case.

3.

In view of the above facts, the appeal is now no more maintainable for the reason that :-

(i) it is not pursued by the Liquidator; & (ii) no Form 36B is available.

4.

This is so for the reason that as soon as the matter is admitted for liquidation, the Managing Director of the Company becomes functus officio and only the Liquidator can pursue this appeal. In such case,

IT(TP)A No.2658/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 3 the Liquidator should have substituted Form 36B. Even otherwise, if the outstanding dues involved in this appeal are not part of the statement of Assets & Liabilities of the Company, the appeal also becomes infructuous.

5.

Accordingly we dismiss this appeal with a liberty to the Liquidator that if he wishes to pursue this appeal, he may file an application for restoration of the appeal along with the amended Form 36B.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →