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

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.

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.

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