SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE PLC.,UK vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1848/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine because the authorization of the signatory to verify the return of income was not sufficiently established. The assessee was granted liberty to refile with proper authorization.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a UK-registered company, filed an appeal before the ITAT. The appeal was signed by an authorized signatory, Mr. Alan Wells. The Tribunal noted that the signatory's authority to verify the return of income, as required by Section 140(c) of the Income Tax Act, was not clearly established.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the appeal due to the unclear authority of the signatory to verify the return of income. This also touched upon the procedural requirements for filing an appeal before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140,Section 253(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Hearing: 12/02/2020Pronounced: 18/05/2020

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the ld AO dated 31.01.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the" impugned assessment in bad in law, being a non-speaking order passed in complete disregard of the tactual details and submissions filed by the Appellant during the course of the objection and assessment proceedings.

2. That, the impugned direction of DRP to effect that the Assessing Office should verify the material available on record, was wholly without jurisdiction in view of provisions of section 144C (6) (a) wherein power of DRP is not extended to any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further verification, enquiry and passing of assessment order.

3. That the Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") are ultra-vires the provisions of the Act and bad in law.

4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the directions issued by the DRP are ultra-vires the provisions of section 144C (5) read with section 144C (8) of the 5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order is bad in law to the extent it has been passed in pursuance of directions issued by the DRP which are in violation of the provisions of the Act and hence is void order."

6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessing officer erred in assessing the income (Long Term Capital gain) of the assessee at Rs 42,673,897/- as against the returned income of Rs Nil - Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 24,351,363/- declared by the assessee.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →