Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 24/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal is filed against the DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAS/S/250/2023- 24/1063198156(1) dt. 22/03/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the Addl/Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Chandigarh [‘CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Pune [‘AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter];
The case was called twice, none appeared at the bequest of the appellant, in absence of any application seeking adjournment and none prosecution, after the primary briefing ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 2
Gulshan Forex Private Limited (Struck-off Company) Vs ITO from the Ld. DR we deem it fit to proceed & adjudicate the issue ex-parte u/r 24 of ITAT- Rules, 1963, ergo proceeded accordingly.
We have heard the Ld. DR on the limited issue of admissibility & maintainability of appeal and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record.
At the outset we note that, the appeal is filed by Mr Shevo Punjabi as claiming to be the managing director of appellant company which was stuck down on 19/11/2018. Since the assessee company in whose hands the assessment was framed is no-more in existence in the eyes of law owning to its striking-off by the Registrar of Companies [‘ROC/MCA’ hereinafter], neither the signatory Mr Shevo Punjabi has nor the assessee company has any locus-standi to represent its case in appeal. The affidavit executed on 11/05/2024 in the capacity of managing director did also confirm the fact that the assessee company ceased to exist w.e.f. 19/11/2018, therefore both the signatory & the company lacked right to file present appeal, sue or litigate or to prosecute the appeal filed. We therefore find force in the argument of Ld. DR that the present appeal is neither admissible, nor maintainable thus deserves to be dismissed in-limine. Ordered accordingly.
The appeal in result stands DISMISSED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday, 24th July, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- VINAY BHAMORE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 24th July, 2024. आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 2