Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Aastha Surgimed Limited, appealed against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which confirmed various additions made by the AO for AY 2016-17. During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, it was brought to notice by the Official Liquidator that the company had gone into liquidation and insolvency resolution process prior to the appeal being filed by the Director of the company.
Held
The ITAT held that the Director lacked the authority to file the appeal as the company was already in liquidation and under insolvency resolution, and an Official Liquidator had been appointed. The tribunal noted that the Official Liquidator had already considered the Revenue's demand. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been filed without proper authority.
Key Issues
Whether the Director of a company, after it has entered liquidation and insolvency resolution, possesses the authority to file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Order
: 26.06.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 21.10.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17.
Grounds of appeal
taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is bad-in-law.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) and the assessing officer erred in passing ex-parte order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not providing proper opportunity to the appellant.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the various grounds of appeal
on merit.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.50,39,407/- made by the assessing officer on account of increase in trade payable.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,32,764/- made by the assessing officer on account of depreciation.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,41,231/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on late payment of TDS.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.87,952/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on income tax.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.63,822/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on late deposit of service tax.
10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.7,54,543/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of amount written off during the year.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.10,951/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of donation expense.
12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.11,330/- made by VAT. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,46,550/- made by the assessing officer on account of deferred tax liability.” 3. In this case, in an ex-parte order, the AO computed the total income at Rs.67,09,050/- as against the income declared by the assessee in the income- tax return at Rs.1,10,500/-.
4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) in an ex-parte order confirmed the same.
Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
It is noted that the appeal has been filed on 27.12.2019 by Director of the Company. At the outset, in this case, assessee was represented by Shri Alok Kaushik, Official Liquidator. Shri Alok Kaushik, Official Liquidator informed that the company has gone into liquidation by the order of the National Company Law Tribunal dated 23.02.2021. He further submitted that the company has gone into resolution process by order dated 01.08.2019. In this view of the matter, he submitted that the insolvency process has already been started and the appeal filed by the Director of the Company is subsequent to the said date. As such, he submitted that the appeal has been filed without any authority by the Director. He further
Liquidator, he has already taken into consideration Revenue’s demand in this case. Hence, he submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.
Upon careful consideration, we note that the Official Liquidator has been appointed in this case. Furthermore, the appeal has been filed by the Director subsequent to the insolvency resolution process. The appeal has been filed by the Director of the Company who had no authority to file the appeal. We agree with the submissions of Official Liquidator, Shri Alok Kaushik that this appeal is liable to be dismissed being unauthorised. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of June, 2024.