UB Ostan (India) Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
It is clearly evident that an appeal u/s 253 to the Tribunal is required to be filed in prescribed Form No. 36 and the same is to be signed by the persons specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 45. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 45, the prescribed form of Appeal, the Grounds of Appeal and the Form of Verification appended thereto, are required to be signed and verified by the person who is authorized to sign the return of income under Section 140 of the Income Tax Act,1961. As per Section 140 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the return of income under Section 139 has to be signed and verified, in the case of a company, resident in India, by the Managing Director thereof, or where for any inevitable reason such Managing Director is not able to sign and verify the return or where there is no Managing Director, by any Director thereof. A combined reading of these relevant provisions makes it abundantly clear that the person who is the Managing Director of the assessee company, or its Director in certain circumstances, on the date of the filing of the return only can sign and verify the return in the case of a company, It therefore, follows that a person who is Managing Director or Director, as the case may be, of the company, on the date of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is only authorized to sign and verify the appeal filed before the Tribunal in the case of a company. In the present case, nothing on record suggest that the person filing the instant appeal was so qualified. Therefore, the instant appeal, not signed and verified as per statutory mandate, is not maintainable in law and hence, liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. We order accordingly. This being the case, delving into the merits of the additions, becomes merely academic in nature and we see no fruitful reason to do the same.
