9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 372 - AT - Income TaxValidity of appeal as instituted by AR authorized representative on behalf of the appellant - no document has been filed along with the appeal memo demonstrating the authorization by the assessee to the Authorized Representative - HELD THAT - 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. As Rule 16 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 mandates filing of an document authorizing a representative, therefore, in the absence of such authorization the present appeal is dismissed. 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. Assessee appeal dismissed.
Issues:
The issues in this case involve challenges to the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi, dated 28.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee include challenges to the treatment of credit written off for M/s Arcelons Consulting, reconciliation differences in balances of advances from customers, disallowance of amount paid towards labor welfare fund, and the treatment of advertisement expenditure as capital in nature. Grounds of Appeal: 1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as being bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is criticized for treating the amount pertaining to M/s Arcelons Consulting as credit written off for Rs 99,011. 3. The appeal contests the treatment by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of the difference in reconciliation in balances of advances from customers as an addition to total income for Rs 1,71,01,136. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is faulted for disallowing the amount paid towards labor welfare fund for Rs 7,680. 5. The appeal disputes the treatment of the amount of Rs 22,46,36,307 incurred on advertisement expenditure as being capital in nature. Decision: At the hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee despite notices being issued. The appeal was decided based on the available record as there was no representation from the assessee. The authorized representative on behalf of the appellant did not file any document demonstrating authorization by the assessee. Rule 16 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 requires such authorization to be appended to the memorandum of appeal. As no such authorization was provided, the appeal was dismissed. The assessee was granted the opportunity to seek restoration of the appeal by submitting the required authorization. The appeal stands dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 27th September, 2023.
|
