INDO AMERICAN JEWELLERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3600/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 January 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Form-35 was indeed verified and digitally signed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed because Form-35 was allegedly not verified and digitally signed correctly. The assessee contended that the e-filed Form-35 was compliant with guidelines and digitally signed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of Form-35 verification without affording an opportunity to be heard or appreciating the e-filing compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP; 1. This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [for short ‘the ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No.CIT(A)-20/IT-10113/2016-17 order dated 22.03.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-12(2)(4), Mumbai for the Assessment Year 2013-14 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 31.03.2016. 2. The first ground raised

1.

by assessee is against the dismissal of appeal on the ground that Form-35 was not verified and digitally signed. For this, the assessee has raised following two grounds which are as under:

1. Ground No.1 Mum 2019-Indo American Jewellery Ltd.

The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [the 'CIT- (A)'] has erred in law and in circumstances of the case dismissed the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that Form 35 was not verified and digitally signed by the person authorized to verify the return of income under section 140 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that Form 35 e-filed on the income tax e-filing portal was as per the prescribed guidelines and digitally signed. 2 Ground No.2 The Hon'ble CIT-(A) has erred in law and in circumstances of the case erred in treating the appeal to be 'not valid' is inappropriate and without giving an opportunity to the Appellant for providing any clarification or being heard.

3.

Before us, the Learned counsel for the assessee stated that Form-35 was duly verified and digitally signed and CIT(A) without affording any opportunity, dismissed the appeal by observing as under:

“4. In the instant case, the Form-35 has been verified and digitally signed neither by the Managing Director nor any other Director. Therefore, the appeal is not allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed.” 4. When this fact was pointed out to Sr. DR, she fairly conceded the position.

After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we set- aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for adjudication of the issues on merits. We noted that the form no 35 is verified and digitally signed. Hence, we direct the CIT(A) accordingly.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →