AASMAN TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3846/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 June 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed digitally signed by a director and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to rectify any deficiencies.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) because it was presumed to be not signed by a director. The assessee contended that the appeal was digitally signed by an authorized director.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was validly signed by an authorized director and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Lalan, AR
Hearing: 16.06.2020Pronounced: 16.06.2020

O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 22.03.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1)(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 29.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on the presumption that “1. Dismissal of Appeal without giving opportunity. a. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before dismissing the appeal, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. b. the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant on the presumption that the appeal was not signed by any Director, thereby failed to consider that the Form No35 was digitally signed by Director, who is dully authorized to verify the return of income under section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. c. Your appellant prays that the matter may please be restored to the Hon’ble CIT(A) for deciding the case on merits.”

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing in Para 4 as under: - “4. In the instant case, the Form No.35 has been verified and digitally singed neither by the Managing Director nor any other Director. Therefore, the appeal is not valid. Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →