Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal in the prescribed Form No. 36. Upon perusal, the registry noted that the form was neither verified nor signed by the authorized person, nor were the grounds of appeal signed. This defect was pointed out to the assessee, but no response was received.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the prescribed form for filing the appeal was not verified and signed. Consequently, the appeal was considered non-maintainable and was rejected. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if advised, after due verification and signing of the form.
Key Issues
The appeal was rejected due to the non-verified and unsigned status of the prescribed appeal form, rendering it non-maintainable.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
On perusal of the prescribed Form No. 36 for filing the appeal on behalf of the assessee, we find that said form is neither verified nor signed on behalf of the authorized person nor grounds raised have been signed by the authorized person. This defect was duly pointed out by the registry to the assessee however, there is no response by the assessee despite notifying. Since the prescribed
Sunil Ramachandran Nair 2 form for filing the appeal has not been verified and signed, form for filing the appeal has not been verified and signed form for filing the appeal has not been verified and signed therefore, this appeal is non therefore, this appeal is non-maintainable, hence rejected. However, maintainable, hence rejected. However, the assessee is liberty to file fresh appeal if so advised after due the assessee is liberty to file fresh appeal if so advised after due the assessee is liberty to file fresh appeal if so advised after due verification and signing of Form No. 36. ion and signing of Form No. 36.
The appeal is rejected as un The appeal is rejected as un-admitted.