Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Igate Information Services Private ... vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal29 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A first appellate authority may not dismiss an appeal as infructuous for a defect in the appeal memo, such as want of signature or verification by a competent person, without first affording the assessee an opportunity to rectify or explain the defect; to dismiss without that opportunity is a violation of natural justice and renders the order liable to be set aside. Where a company has no Managing Director, any director of the company is competent to sign and verify the appeal memo, and that is a matter the assessee may explain before the first appellate authority.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALHYDERABAD BENCHES "A", HYDERABADBEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERANDSHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERI.T.A. No. 1911/HYD/2014Assessment Year: 2009-10M/s. IGATE Information Income Tax Officer,Services Private Limited Vs Ward-2(1),(Formerly known as Patni HYDERABADTelecom Solutions Pvt. Ltd)HYDERABAD[PAN: AACCA4255G](Appellant) (Respondent)For Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Revenue : Shri Rama Krishna, Bandi, DRDate of Hearing : 27-04-2015Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2015ORDERPER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. :

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-10-2014 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Hyderabad for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

"1. The order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal as infructuous is contrary to settled principles of law.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect in form

35.

3. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering that the order of the AO is contrary to decisions for I.T.A. No. 1911/Hyd/2014 :- 2 -: M/s. IGATE Information Services Pvt Ltd.,

earlier years in the assessee's own case, contrary to the decision of Supreme Court and also contrary to circular of CBDT and therefore ought to have allowed the appeal".

2. As can be seen, the first issue as raised in grounds 1 & 2 relates to dismissal of assessee's appeal in limine by treating the same as infructuous.

3. Briefly the facts are, assessee, an Indian company is engaged in the business of development and export of computer software. For the assessment year under consider, assessee filed its return of income on 30-09-2009 declaring loss at Rs. 12,43,63,661/-. Initially, assessment in case of the assessee was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (Act) vide order dt. 30-12-2011 by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. However, the said assessment order was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer (AO) for examining assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. In pursuance to the direction of appellate authority, the AO completed the assessment over again vide order dt. 24-07-2014 determining the book profit at Rs. 2,84,98,731/-. Against the said assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous on the reason that appeal memo was not signed and verified by the competent person i.e., the Managing Director of the company.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The Ld. AR submitted before us, Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without allowing an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect in the appeal memo. Further, he submitted that the company has no Managing Director, hence any Director of the company is competent to sign and verify the appeal memo. The Ld. DR I.T.A. No. 1911/Hyd/2014 :- 3 -: M/s. IGATE Information Services Pvt Ltd.,

on the other hand submitted since the appeal filed by the assessee was defective, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as infructuous. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity to the assessee to rectify/explain the defect as alleged to be in the appeal memo filed by the assessee. Thus, the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) being in gross violation of natural justice, deserves to be set aside. It was submitted by Ld. AR before us that the company has no Managing Director hence, any director of the company is competent to sign and verify the appeal memo. In our view, these facts can be explained by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file for deciding afresh on merit after allowing opportunity to the assessee to rectify/explain defect in the appeal memo. It goes without saying Ld.CIT(A) must afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5. As we have remitted the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding on merit, we decline to adjudicate ground No.3.

6. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 29th April, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated 29th April, 2015

TNMM I.T.A. No. 1911/Hyd/2014

:- 4 -: M/s. IGATE Information Services Pvt Ltd.,

Copy to :

1. M/s. IGATE Information Services Private Limited, (formerly known as Patni Telecom Solutions Pvt. Ltd) Pheonix Special Economic Zone, Hitech City 2, Plot No. H-07, Behind Cyber Tower Gateway, Hyderabad.

C/o. Sri K. Vasantkumar & A.V. Raghuram, Advocates, 610, 6th Floor, Babhukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Room No. 837, C-Block, 8th Floor, I.T. Towers, Hyderabad.

3. CIT(Appeals)-III, Hyderabad.

4. CIT-II, Hyderabad.

5. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free