M/S ROSEMERY MECHANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),KOLKATA, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 422/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 January 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the absence of a signature in the appeal memorandum is an irregularity, not an illegality, and can be rectified. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine because it was not signed and verified. The CIT(A) refused to allow rectification, citing delay.

What were the issues?

Whether an unsigned appeal memorandum is invalid and if rectification should be allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (A

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

order

: January 23, 2019 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Siliguri dated 06.09.2012 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by treating the same as invalid.

2.

The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.12.2011 declaring a total income at Nil. In the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Act vide an order dated 30.12.2011, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 3,25,56,700/- after making additions of Rs. 197 lacs on account of share application money, Rs. 30 lacs on account of unsecured loan and Rs. 98,56,697/- on account of sundry creditors by treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Rosemery Merchants Pvt. Ltd.

3.

Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68. As noticed by the A.O., the said appeal, however, was not signed and verified by the assessee. He, therefore, treated the appeal filed by the assessee as invalid and dismissed the same at the threshold. He also did not allow the opportunity to rectify the mistake as sought by the assessee observing that allowing such opportunity would in any case result in delay of more than 7 months which could not be condoned in the absence of any valid reason. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sheonath Singh vs. CIT 33 ITR 591 cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, the absence of or defect in the signature of any appellant in the memorandum of appeal is not an illegality or fatal but only an irregularity which could not be rectified by amendment. It was also held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that such amendment would take effect from the date when the memorandum of appeal as originally filed. Respectfully following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheonath Singh (supra), set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to him with the direction to allow an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the memorandum of appeal and to decide the appeal of the assessee after such rectification on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Rosemery Merchants Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd January, 2019.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →