TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed for lack of representation; assessee must provide authorization for restoration</h1> <h3>M/s One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi.</h3> M/s One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi. - TMI 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
