Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Karuturi Global Ltd., filed several appeals and cross-appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of these appeals, the company went into liquidation, and a liquidator was appointed. The appeals were signed by directors of the company, not the liquidator, and the necessary documentation (Form 36) was not properly updated.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable because they were not properly verified and not signed by the appointed liquidator. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals filed by the company under liquidation are maintainable when not signed by the liquidator, and whether the Revenue's appeals are infructuous due to the company's liquidation.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(5), 144C, 92CA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
Date of hearing : 19.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 O R D E R Per Bench 1. These are cross appeals filed by KARUTURI GLOBAL LTD. (the assessee) and DCIT/ACIT, Circle 1(5) / 4(1)(1), Bangalore [ld. AO] for several assessment years as under:-
(a) IT(TP)A No.929/Bang/2014 is filed by Karuturi Global Ltd. (assessee/appellant) for AY 2008-09 against the appellate order passed by CIT(Appeals)-I, Bangalore dated 8.3.2014 signed by MD of the company, K.S. Ramakrishna. is also filed by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-4, Bangalore on 21.02.2017 signed by Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi.
(c) IT(TP)A No.123/Bang/2014 is filed by assessee for AY 2009-10 against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 31.1.2014 passed by the DCIT, Circle 1(5), Bangalore and Form 36 is present by Anita Karuturi, Director.
(d) IT(TP)A No.472/Bang/2015 is filed by assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 29.1.2015 by the IT(TP)A No.929/Bang/2014 & Ors. Page 3 of 5
DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore and Form 36 is signed by K.S. Ramakrishna, Director, MD of the assessee company.
(e) IT(TP)A No.104/Bang/2016 is filed by the assessee against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 31.12.2015 by the DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore and presented by K.S. Ramakrishna, Director, MD of the assessee company.
(f) IT(TP)A No.2827/Bang/2018 is filed for AY 2014-15 presented by Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, MD against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 92CA of the Act dated 10.8.2018 by the DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore.
During the course of hearing, it has come to the notice that NCLT initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against this company on 2.8.2019 which led to its liquidation. One Mr. P R Raman is appointed as the Liquidator. Assets of this company are being sold through auction. Liquidator is representing the company for liquidation matters as well as before NCLT. However, the present appeals directed before us are signed by some directors of the company. On appointment of liquidator, those directors do not have any locus standi to file and pursue these appeals. The Liquidator has though issued Letter of Authority in favour of the counsel, however, has not replaced Form 36 duly signed by him. This is not done despite liquidation process going on for almost 5 years. In view of this, these appeals filed by the assessee before us are dismissed as not properly verified and also not substituting the form no 36 duly signed and verified by the IT(TP)A No.929/Bang/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 5
liquidator. Thus, the appeals filed by assessee are not maintainable and hence dismissed.
The Liquidator is granted liberty that if he wants to continue the above proceedings involved in these appeals, fresh Form 36 is required to be filed along with petition for condonation of delay that why it has not been done for such a long time. The coordinate Bench may take a decision at that time in accordance with law regarding recall of this order.
Thus, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
The ld. AO has also filed appeals in these cases in IT(TP)A No.1057/Bang/2014 for AY 2008-09, IT(TP)A No.244/Bang/2014 for AY 2009-10 & IT(TP)A No.515/Bang/2015 for AY 2010-11. The company is already into liquidation, the assets of the company are being sold as per various notices and e-auction sale notices published by the Liquidator. Even if the Revenue succeeds in these appeals, there is no chance of any recovery of any tax out of the assets of the assessee company. Therefore, these appeals have become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the ld. AO are also dismissed.
If the ld. AO wants to continue with these appeals, the ld. AO must show that the claim was made before the NCLT at the time of liquidation about this litigation and consequent demand, if any, arising out of these appeals. The Bench, if such application is made, may consider restoration of the appeals.
IT(TP)A No.929/Bang/2014 & Ors. Page 5 of 5
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 224th day of June, 2025.