Krbl Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA NO.2892/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be signed by the authority filing it; where the grounds of appeal bear no signature of the officer concerned and are signed only with the name of a superior authority, the appeal is defective and not maintainable in law. An appeal before the Tribunal that seeks to cover orders passed for more than one assessment year is not permissible; each assessment year requires a separate appeal, and a single appeal combining several assessment years is defective on that account.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Department by : Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Vinod Kr. Bindal, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Bindal, CA
Date of Hearing : 18-03-2015 Date of Order : 18-03-2015
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this appeal on 09.5.2013 which came up for hearing before the Bench on 5.6.2014 and the appeal was adjourned to 1.10.2014, at the request of the Ld. DR. As per the order sheet the appeal was fixed before the Bench on 4-5 times, but was adjourned due to non-functioning of the Bench and on the request of the DR and finally came up for hearing before the Bench on 18.3.2015.
2. After going through the grounds of appeal, we find that the grounds of appeal raised by the Department have not been signed by the ACIT, Circle-50(1), New Delhi, as required under section 1 ITA NO.2892/Del/2013
253(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. For the sake of convenience, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the present appeal are reproduced as under:-
"GROUNDS OF APPEAL
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in
law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in:
1) On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as in
law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting that the payment
of Rs. 20,00,000/- made for providing space for sponsorship
of exhibition is liable for deduction u/s. 194C of the I.T. Act
instead . T. Act as held by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has
further erred in deleting the tax liability of Rs. 4,48,800/-.
2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that during assessment proceedin the appellant had brought nothing on record to substantiate that TDS has been deducted u/s. 194C of the I.T. Act and paid to Govt. account on account of payment made for providing space for sponsorship of exhibition.
3) The Ld. CIT(A) has appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the Grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing.
..............Sd/-
Signed Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) New Delhi Signed (Authorised representative, if any)
2 ITA NO.2892/Del/2013
Verification I, Dr. Monisha, ACIT, Circle-50(1), N.D. the appellant, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best of my information and belief.
Verified today the 31st day of January 2013 Sd/-
ACIT Circle 50(1), N.D.
Certificate of Service
Certified that, copy of the order of CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi in the above case, for the F.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2007-08 was communicated to CIT, Delhi-XVII on 12.3.2013.
Sd/-
ACIT Circle 50(1), N.D."
3. No doubt that the Ld. CIT(TDS), Delhi vide his order 8.5.2013 passed u/s. 253(2) of the I.T. Act has directed the ACIT, Circle 50(1), New Delhi to file the Appeal before the ITAT, Delhi against the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi on the grounds mentioned above, but the ACIT has not applied her mind while filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and she filed the grounds of appeal without her signatures and by writing Sd/- CIT(TDS) which is contrary to the provisions of section 153(2) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the present Appeal is defective and is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
4. Secondly, after perusing the impugned order as well as Form-36 vide Column No. 3, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order for the three asstt. years i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, but the Revenue has filed only one Appeal for all the three assessment years i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10
3 ITA NO.2892/Del/2013
before the Tribunal, which is also not permissible in the eyes of law. However, as per Rules, the Revenue has to file three appeals for each asstt. year before the Tribunal. Therefore, in our considered view this appeal is defective on this account also.
5. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we dismiss the
present appeal filed by the Revenue, being 'Defective'. But in the
interest of justice, we are giving the liberty to the Revenue to file the
Application for recall of this order, as per Rules.
6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18/3/2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
[T.S. KAPOOR] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 18/3/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant -
2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches
4 ITA NO.2892/Del/2013
5
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