Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under section 144(3) was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that Form-35 was not signed by the Official Liquidator. The assessee contended that the form was indeed signed by Mr. Chanchal Dua, who was the appointed Official Liquidator, and submitted an NCLT order clarifying a previous name correction regarding the liquidator.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal as not maintainable without confronting the issue with the assessee to seek clarification. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and all grounds were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a due and effective opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal as non-maintainable due to a perceived defect in the signature on Form-35, without allowing the assessee to clarify the identity of the signatory who was the appointed Official Liquidator.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM,
The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 144(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable and infructuous on the ground that Form-35 was not signed by the Official Liquidator. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that form was actually signed by Chanchal Dua who is in fact Official Liquidator appointed by NCLT. In support, he has also filed a copy of NCLT order dated 05.05.2022, in IA/2014/2022 in Company Petition No.(IB)-2158(ND)/2019, wherein, following order has been passed:-
“This is an application un behalf of the Liquidator for HI Tech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules 2016 for seeking rectification of order of this Tribunal dated 13.04.2022 in IA No.5033 of 2020. Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator has appeared and submitted that in order dated 13.04.2022 in paras 12(a) & 12(b) (page 6 & 7) the name of the Liquidator has been written as Mr. Chalal Dua. The correct name of the Liquidator is Mr. Chanchal Dua. He has requested to accordingly modify the order dated 13.04.2022. It transpires that inadvertently the name of Mr. Chanchal Dua in para 12(a) & 12(b) of the said order has been written as Mr. Chalal Dua. This Tribunal orders the correction in paras 12(a) & 12(b) in the order of the Tribunal dated 13.04.2022 wherein the name Mr. Chalal Dua appears, to be replaced by Mr. Chanchal Dua. The order is accordingly stands modified.”
Thus, the learned CIT (A) was incorrect in holding that the appeal has not signed by the Official Liquidator and at least it should have confronted the same to the assessee to get it to seek clarification instead of treating the appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and all the grounds raised before us are remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04th March, 2024.