Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM :
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 11.10.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2012-13.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the assessee that the ex-parte assessment order passed without service of
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd. proper notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity is not a valid order. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus accommodation entries disregarding the facts of the case, patent deficiencies in the assessment order and explanations submitted by the appellant. 3. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. Company. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of Income Tax in case of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt and related entities on 09.02.2016. During the search and seizure action statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Batt was recorded u/s 132(4) in which he accepted that he is an entry operator and all 11 companies were bogus entries of the companies used for providing various bogus entities /entries to the beneficiaries for commission. Based on the said information the AO reopened the assessment of the assessee by issuing notice u/s 148 on 15.10.2016. The AO proposed to assess the income of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of share capital received from M/s Sampda Chemicals Ltd. controlled by Mr. Vipul Vidur Batt as a Director of the said company. Since there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued u/s 148 as well as section 142(1) the AO framed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.section 147 whereby the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.25 lakhs. The assesse challenged the order of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed.
Page 2 of 8
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR has argued at length on various points including validity of the assessment order framed in name of Grand Consultancy Services Ltd. instead of Grand Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Ld. DR has submitted that the assessment order was framed as best judgment assessment when there was no response on behalf of the assessee therefore, the assesse failed to produce any supporting evidence to the claim of share capital received from tainted entity.
At the outset, we find that the appeal memo in form 36 has
not been verified in terms of Rule 47(1) of the Income Tax Rules,
1962 which reads as under:
(1) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 253 to the Appellate Tribunal shall be made in Form No. 36 85[, and where the appeal is made by the assessee, the form of appeal, the grounds of appeal and the form of Tenfication appended thereto shall be signed by the person specified in 86[sub-rule (3)] of rule 45]. 2) A memorandum of cross-objections under sub-section (4) of section 253 to the Appellate Tribunal shall be made in Form No. 36A 85[, and where the memorandum of cross-objection is made by the assessee, the form of memorandum of cross- objections, the grounds of cross-objections and the form of verification appended thereto shall be signed by the person specified in [sub-rule (3)] of rule 45].” 4.1 Thus, it is clear that the appeal u/s 253(1) to the Tribunal
shall be made in form no.36 and the grounds of appeal shall be
duly verified and appended thereto by the person specified in Rule Page 3 of 8
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd. 45(3) of Income Tax Rules 1962. Rule 45(3) prescribes that the form
of appeal (Form No.35) shall be verified by the person who is
authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Act as
applicable to the assesse. Thus, form no. 35 shall be signed and
verified by the person who is authorized to verify the return of
income u/s 140 of the Act. Section 140 of Income Tax Act
prescribes the person who is authorized/competent to verify the
return of income and as per clause(c) of section 140 the Managing
Director of a company is the person competent to verify the return
of income of company and also memo of appeal in form 36 in view
of section Rule 47(1) r.w. Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules 1962.
In case the managing director is not available to verify or there is no
managing Director then by any Director of the company. In case in
hand the form 36 is verified by the Authorized Representative (CA)
of the assesse company and not by the Managing Director or
Director of the assesse company. For ready reference a scan copy of
form no. 36 is reproduced as under:
Page 4 of 8
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd.
Page 5 of 8
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd.
Page 6 of 8
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd.
4.2 Thus, it is clear that the form number 36 has not been verified by the person who is prescribed as per section 140 r.w. Rule 47(1) and Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rule 1962 and consequently the present appeal of the assesse is not valid appeal. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine being not a valid appeal. The assessee is at liberty to file a fresh valid appeal within a period of 30 days from this order.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.05.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Indore,_ 09.05.2024 Patel/Sr. PS
Page 7 of 8
ITANo.514/Ind/2023 Grand Consulting Service Pvt. ltd. Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 8 of 8