Case Law Details
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Vs ACIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Bangalore)
Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, dismissed the appeal filed by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences for Assessment Year 2015-16 on the ground that the appeal was not properly verified by the competent authority under the Income Tax Act and Rules. The appeal before the ITAT was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 22.11.2023, which had partly allowed the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 142(2A) on 07.05.2018.
During verification of records, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies regarding the person who verified the filings at different stages. Form No. 35 filed before the CIT(A) was verified by the Finance Officer, while Form No. 36 before the ITAT was verified by the Assistant Registrar. The revised return of income placed in the paper book was also signed by the Finance Officer.
The Tribunal examined Section 140 of the Income Tax Act along with Rules 47(1) and 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which provide that the person authorized to verify the return of income is also the competent person to file and verify the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the return of income of the University was required to be signed by the Principal Officer, identified as the Registrar of the University.
The Authorized Representative was unable to explain the variation in verification of the return of income and appeals before different authorities. The Tribunal also referred to Section 13 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, which states that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University.
Holding that the appeal was not filed by the Principal Officer of the University, the ITAT concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it as infructuous. However, the Tribunal clarified that no injustice should be caused to the assessee and permitted the University to file a properly verified appeal in accordance with the Income Tax Rules, 1962, along with an application for condonation of delay, if required. The Tribunal stated that such application would be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the ITAT Rules. The order was pronounced on 26 March 2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
ITA No. 113/Bang/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is filed by M/s. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (the Assessee/ Appellant) which is verified by the Assistant Registrar, Dr. Santosh C.S., against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) on 22.11.2023 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 142(2A) dated 07.05.2018, was partly allowed.
2. On verification of form no. 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), it was found that it is verified by the Finance Officer. On verification of form no. 36 before us, the Appeal was verified by the Assistant Registrar.
3. According to the provisions of section 140 of the Act, the Assessee was asked who the person is to verify the return of income. This is so because, In the paper book filed by the Assessee, copy of the revised return was filed at page no. 11-14 of the paper book which is signed by the Finance Officer. Therefore, it is not clear who is the Principal Officer of the Assessee who can verify the return of income filed by the Assessee as well as the Appeal before ITAT.
4. According to rule 47(1) & 45(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, the person who can verify the return of income u/s. 140 of the Income Tax Act can file the Appeal before us. The return of the Assessee is required to be signed by the Principal Officer who is Registrar of the University.
5. When questioned, the Ld. Authorized Representative could not answer why there is a variation in filing of the return of income, Appeal before us and Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as pointed out above.
6. According to section 13 of The RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ACT, 1994 The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University.
7. As the Appeal is not filed by the Principal Officer of the University, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is not maintainable and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous.
8. However, no injustice should be done to the Assessee and a litigant in any circumstances, the Assessee is directed to file the Appeal in correctly verified in accordance with the Income tax Rules, 1962 with an application for condonation of delay, if any. The same would be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and ITAT rules.
9. The Appeal of the Assessee is infructuous and hence dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2026.
Author Bio
