One Mobikwik Systems Private Limited, Gurgaon V. Addi. CIT Special Range- 7, New Delhi

ITA 7550/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal raised several grounds, including disputes over the treatment of certain financial entries and expenditures. However, the tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a proper authorization document for the representative who filed the appeal. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of compliance with Rule 16 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which mandates the submission of an authorization document when an appeal is filed by a representative.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112552 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ONE

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 7550/del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7550/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd., 6 th Floor, Good Earth Business Bay, Sector-58, Gurgaon, Haryana-122101 PAN-AABCO0442Q Vs Addl. CIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Subra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 26.09.2023 Date of pronouncement 27.09.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi, dated 28.06.2019, 2 ITA No. 7550/del/2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(appeals) - 38, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned CIT(A’) under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the amount pertaining to M/s Arcelons Consulting as credit written off forRs 99,011. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the difference in reconciliation in balances of advances from customers as per books and as per its own MIS as an addition to total income for Rs 1,71,01,136. 4. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount paid towards labour welfare fund for Rs 7,680 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the amount of Rs 22,46,36,307 incurred on advertisement expenditure as being capital in nature.” 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings. It is seen from the records that there has been no representation on behalf of the assessee since 7.6.2022 despite issue of notices for hearing. No change in address, if any, has also been intimated by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record. 3 ITA No. 7550/del/2019 3. At the outset learned DR pointed out that the present appeal has been instituted by the authorized representative on behalf of the appellant. However, no document has been filed along with the appeal memo demonstrating the authorization by the assessee to the Authorized Representative. 4. We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the present appeal has been instituted on behalf of the assessee by one Shri Saurabh Jain, who has signed Form no. 36 under the designation of Financial Controller. However, no letter of authorization by the assessee company authorizing Shri Saurabh Jain to file the present appeal is enclosed along with the appeal memo. 4.1 Rule 16 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 mandates filing of an document authorizing a representative. For the sake of clarity the relevant Rule 16 is reproduced as under: “16. In any appeal by any assessee, where the memorandum of appeal is signed by his authorized representative, the assessee shall append to the memorandum a document authorizing the representative to appear for him and if the representative is a relative of the assessee, the document shall state what his relationship is with the assessee, or if he is a person regularly employed by the assessee, the document shall state the capacity in which he is at the time employed.” 4 ITA No. 7550/del/2019 4.2 Therefore, in the absence of such authorization the present appeal is dismissed. The assessee would be at liberty to seek restoration of appeal and submit the latter of authorization which authorized Shri Saurabh Jain for signing the appeal memo on behalf of the assessee company. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 27 th September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI