Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1213 - AT - Income TaxCompliance of the statutory requirement of signing and verification of the memorandum of appeal by an authorised person - whether the memorandum of appeal filed by the assessee company with the CIT(A)-2, Mumbai, had been signed and verified by a duly authorised person or not? - Held that:- We are in agreement with the observation of the CIT(A) that there cannot be any escape as regards carrying out compliance of the statutory requirement of signing and verification of the memorandum of appeal by an authorised person in terms of Section 249 of the Act r.w. Rule 45 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, as it is only on filing of a valid appeal which is signed and verified by a duly authorised person as required under law that the process of appeal is set into motion. However, we find that the CIT(A) after arriving at the aforesaid observation and therein concluding that the appeal in the present case, as required under Section 249 r.w Rule 45 was statutorily required to be signed and verified by the managing director of the assessee company, had thereafter hushed through the matter and lost sight of the fact that at the relevant point of time when the appeal was signed and filed, i.e. as on 05.01.2012 and 06.01.2012, respectively, due to unavailability of the managing director of the assessee company, the same was signed and verified by Sh. C.R. Mulky, who pursuant to the resolution passed by the board of directors as on 17th October 2011 was duly vested with the powers of the Chief executive officer during the period when Shri Bhaskar K. Amin, managing director and chief executive officer, was on leave or remained absent till his retirement on 31st January 2012. Thus we are of the considered view that the appeal filed by the assessee company was duly signed and verified by an authorised person as required in law and the CIT(A) had erred in declining to entertain the appeal of the assessee company and thus wrongly dismissed the same. We thus in light of the aforesaid facts restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction that the same be admitted and disposed of on merits after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. Thus the ‘Ground of appeal No. 1’ raised by the assessee company is allowed.
|