M/S COUPONDUNIA MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3318/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 July 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the defect in Form No. 35 was rectifiable and the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to cure it. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) because Form No. 35 was not digitally signed by an authorized person as per Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to rectify this defect.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to rectify a rectifiable defect in Form No. 35.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

Hearing: 13.07.2021Pronounced: 13.07.2021

आदेश / O R D E R ए रयपऔय यहभान, लेखा सदस्य के द्वाया / PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], dated 15.03.2019. The assessment was framed by the

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is that the CIT(A) has not provided opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect highlighted by CIT(A) in his order but dismissed the appeal mechanically.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the time of hearing, we noticed that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal with the observation that form No.35 was verified and digitally singed neither by the Managing Director nor any other Directors. Further, he observed that form No.35 was verified and digitally singed by the assessee. However, as per Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules’) the form No.35 is required to be verified by the authorized person who is authorized to verify the Return on Income (in short ‘ROI’) under section 140 of the Act on behalf of the assessee.

4.

Since, the appeal is dismissed by the learned CIT(A) with above discrepancies, which are rectifiable in nature. Therefore, we are remitting the appeal back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter on merits after receiving proper Form No.35 with due compliance. We also direct the assessee to file the proper form No.35 before the learned CIT(A) and pursue the matter before

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →