DEESAN COTEX PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO12(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4192/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 July 2021AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Form 35 was digitally signed by a Director, and therefore, there was no defect in the appeal filed. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as invalid because the Form 35 was not verified by the Managing Director or any other Director. The assessee provided a clarification stating that any director is competent to sign the appeal application in the absence of a Managing Director.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed before the CIT(A) is invalid if Form 35 is not verified by the Managing Director, but by another Director.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

Hearing: 14.07.2021Pronounced: 14.07.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/IT-10663/2016-17 vide dated 22.03.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Kudal (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal treating it as invalid. The learned Counsel for the assessee first of all took us through the ground No. 1 which read as under: - “Ground NO.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and treating it as invalid due to error in filing Form 35. The appellant prays before your Honor to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh.”

3.

Subsequently, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) vide Para 2, 3 and 4 and stated that the CIT(A) has just dismissed the appeal as it is neither verified by managing director nor by any director and he dismissed the appeal as invalid by observing in Para 4 as under: - “4. In the instant case, the Form No.35 has been verified neither by the Managing Director nor any other Director. Therefore, the appeal is not valid. Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed.”

4.

In this, we have seen a letter dated 08.06.2019 of the Director of the assessee company, wherein it is clarified that form 36 has not “RE: M/s Deesan Cotex Private Limited Sub: Clarification regarding Form 36 signed by the Director.

1.

This has reference to the form 36 being filed by M/s Deesan Cotex Private Limited in respect of Assessment Year 2014-15 before your Honour.

In respect of the same, it is submitted that as the company is not having any Managing Director as on date, any director is competent to sign the appeal application. Therefore, the assessee has complied with sub rule (2) of Rule 45 read with Rule 47 of the Income Tax Rules 1962 and Section 140(c) of the Income Tax Act, 196.

We request your honour to take the same into consideration and oblige.

5.

We noted from Form No. 35 also that this form has been digitally signed by one Director Shri Hiral Chintan Patel and the relevant verification reads as under:-

Form of Verification I DEESAN COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED the appellant, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best of my information and belief. It is also certified that no Place: Mumbai Date: 25/01/2017 This form has been digitally signed by HIRAL CHINTAN PATEL having PAN AKYPP2616H from IP Address 203.115.123.146 on 2017-01-25 17:07:27:0. Dsc Sl No and issuer 2190959699283688129CN=SafeScrypt sub-CA for RCAI Class 2 2014, OU= Sub-CA,O=Sify Technologies Limited, C=IN 6. Once, the proper verification is done digitally by the Director, there is no defect in the appeal filed before CIT(A), hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the Result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2021.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →