Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench“A”, New Delhi
Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & BEFORE Ms. Suchitra Kamble
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.3.2015 of the learned CIT(A), Meerut. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that inadvertently and due to oversight name of the assessee was wrongly mentioned as Mool Chand Textiles instead of Shri. Puneet Kumar. He sought the permission to file fresh form no. 36 in the name of Shri. Puneet Kumar. In her rival submissions, the learned CIT DR objected the above contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and submitted that this appeal is not maintainable since the assessee Mool Chand Textiles is not aggrieved against the impugned order which does not pertain to the assessee who filed this appeal.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that M/s Mool Chand Textiles filed the appeal. However, the copy of the challan for depositing the appellate fee was not attached to the appeal memo, so it is not clear as to whether the appellate fee was deposited by M/s Mool Chand Textiles, Meerut. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with the liberty to the assessee to file the appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay in case the appellate fee was deposited by Shri. Puneet Kumar to whom the impugned order of the CIT(A) relates and the name of M/s Mool Chand Textiles in form no. 36 was wrongly mentioned inadvertently due to typographical mistake. Accordingly, the appeal in the name of M/s Mool Chand Textiles, Meerut is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in the name of M/s Mool Chand Textiles, Meerut is dismissed. (Pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 23.10.2017.)