Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
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’).
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.”
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.”