RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/BANG/2024Status: HeardITAT Bangalore26 March 2026AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – (President), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Assessee was not maintainable. This was because the appeal was not verified by the Principal Officer of the University, as required by the Income Tax Rules. According to Section 13 of The RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ACT, 1994, the Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer. The ITAT noted that the return of income should be signed by the Principal Officer, who is the Registrar of the University. Since the appeal was not filed by the Principal Officer, it was dismissed as infructuous. However, to avoid injustice, the Assessee was directed to file a fresh appeal, correctly verified in accordance with the Income Tax Rules, 1962, along with an application for condonation of delay, if any. This fresh appeal would be considered on its merits.

What were the facts?

The Assessee, M/s. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), Bangalore, filed an appeal (ITA No. 113/Bang/2024) for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC's order had partly allowed the Assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 142(2A) dated 07.05.2018. During the proceedings before the ITAT, it was noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was verified by the Finance Officer, while the appeal before the ITAT was verified by the Assistant Registrar. The Assessee's revised return was signed by the Finance Officer. The ITAT sought clarification on who the Principal Officer of the Assessee was, capable of verifying the return and the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is maintainable, considering the person who verified it. Assessee's contention: The Assessee's Authorized Representative could not explain the variation in the verification of the return of income and the appeals filed before the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The Assessee relied on Rule 47(1) & 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which permit the person who can verify the return of income under Section 140 of the Income Tax Act to file an appeal. The Assessee also referred to Section 13 of The RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ACT, 1994, which designates the Vice-Chancellor as the principal executive and academic officer. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not record any specific contentions regarding the maintainability of the appeal based on the verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140,Section 143(3),Section 142(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE —- & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR

ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT Assessment Year 2015-16 is filed by M/s. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (the Assessee/ Appellant) which is verified by the Assistant Registrar, Dr. Santosh C.S., against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) on 22.11.2023 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 142(2A) dated 07.05.2018, was partly allowed.

1.

Page 2 of 3 2. On verification of form no. 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), it was found that it is verified by the Finance Officer. On verification of form no. 36 before us, the Appeal was verified by the Assistant Registrar.

3.

According to the provisions of section 140 of the Act, the Assessee was asked who the person is to verify the return of income. This is so because, In the paper book filed by the Assessee, copy of the revised return was filed at page no. 11-14 of the paper book which is signed by the Finance Officer. Therefore, it is not clear who is the Principal Officer of the Assessee who can verify the return of income filed by the Assessee as well as the Appeal before ITAT.

4.

According to rule 47(1) & 45(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, the person who can verify the return of income u/s. 140 of the Income Tax Act can file the Appeal before us. The return of the Assessee is required to be signed by the Principal Officer who is Registrar of the University.

5.

When questioned, the Ld. Authorized Representative could not answer why there is a variation in filing of the return of income, Appeal before us and Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as pointed out above.

6.

According to section 13 of The RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ACT, 1994 The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University.

7.

As the Appeal is not filed by the Principal Officer of the University, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is not maintainable and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous.

8.

However, no injustice should be done to the Assessee and a litigant in any circumstances, the Assessee is directed to file the Appeal in Page 3 of 3 correctly verified in accordance with the Income tax Rules, 1962 with an application for condonation of delay, if any. The same would be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and ITAT rules.

9.

The Appeal of the Assessee is infructuous and hence dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2026.

More judgments on Section 140

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →