MUDALIAR & SONS HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that as per the Income Tax Rules and Section 140 of the Act, only a Managing Director or Director can verify the return of income for a company. Since the appeal was verified by an unauthorized signatory, it was defective and not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but the Form No. 36 and grounds of appeal were not properly verified. Despite multiple opportunities, the defects were not rectified.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed by a company is maintainable if it is not verified by an authorized signatory as per the Income Tax Act and Rules.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01/06/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14.
From the perusal of the record, we find that Form No. 36 and the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are signed by the Authorised Signatory. We further find that the Registry of the Tribunal, vide notice dated 21/11/2023, notified the aforesaid defects to the assessee and granted 10 days to rectify the same. Further, on the last date of hearing, i.e. on 29/01/2024, time was granted to the learned AR to file the rectified Form No.
Mudaliar & Sons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3073/Mum./2023 36 and grounds of appeal. However, despite the grant of sufficient opportunity to the assessee, even today the aforesaid defects have not been rectified by the assessee.
It is undisputed that the assessee is a Private Limited Company. As per Rule 47 read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the form of appeal is required to be verified by the person who is authorised to verify the return of income under section 140 of the Act. Further, as per section 140(c) of the Act in the case of a company only the Managing Director or Director, as the case may be, is authorised to verify the return of income. Since in the present case, the person verifying the grounds of appeal and Form No.36 is neither Managing Director nor Director, therefore the appeal as filed by the assessee is defective and thus not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek recall of this order once the aforesaid defects, as notified by the Registry of the Tribunal, are rectified and grounds of appeal and Form No. 36 duly verified, as noted above, are placed on record.
In the result, the present appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/02/2024
More judgments on Section 140
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Ravi Construction Pvt Ltd, DelhiITA 4005/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Bhadohi Industrial Development Authority… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 325/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2016-17
- Sri Sarva Dharma Samanvaya Trust… vs CIT Exemptions, BangaloreITA 2464/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2025-26
- Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income…ITA 113/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: Heard26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
- Srs It Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-II, FaridabadITA 3636/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Jan 2026AY 2008-09
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026