DR. SURAJ SANGHAVI, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4904/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 490419914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUBAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL LATHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.4904/MUM/2010. ASSESS MENT YEAR : 2006-07 DR. SAROJ SANGHVI, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-401, TIRUPATI APARTMENTS, VS. 11(3)(2), MUMBAI. BHULABHAI DEAI ROAD, MUMBAI 400026. PAN AIUPS 1328 K APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI R AHUL LATHI RESPON DENT BY : SHRI M.R. KUBAL. O R D E R. PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-2, MUMBAI DATED 05-04-2010 WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE TREATING THE SAME AS INVALI D AND NONEST ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE E FFECT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WAS SIGNE D AND VERIFIED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD NEVER BEEN INFORME D BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY AND NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE SAME AND THIS POSITION APPARENT FROM TH E RELEVANT DOCUMENTS PLACED ON 2 ITA NO.4904/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 RECORD BEFORE US HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LEARN ED DR. IN THE CASE OF SMT. KANTADEVI SAJANKU VS. WTO REPORTED IN 5 ITD 467, A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEFECT IN SIGNING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CURABLE DEFECT AND THE A.A. C. OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE SAID DEFECT. SI NCE NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE A.A.C. TO THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL D IRECTED THE FORMER TO GRANT SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL COULD BE REGULARIZED BY HER SIGNATURE. A SIMILAR ISSUE ALSO CAME BEFORE THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDSTONE EXPORT LTD. VS. A CIT 104 ITD 15 WHEREIN CIT(APPEALS) WAS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO AFFORD ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL WHICH W AS NOT SIGNED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OR DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT WA S SIGNED VICE PRESIDENT (FINANCE) ON THE STRENGTH OF A WRITTEN AUTHORITY AS THE TWO DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE OUT OF INDIA. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HESE TWO DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN) (P.M. JA GTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2011. 3 ITA NO.4904/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, F-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORD ER ASSTT. R EGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BEN CHES, MUMBA I. WAKODE