Appeal under Section 253 must use Form No. 36 with authorized signature and verification, or be dismissed

The ITAT Mumbai held that an appeal under section 253 must be filed in the prescribed Form No. 36, signed and verified by the person authorized under section 140 to sign the return of income. Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement, including failure to produce a valid power of attorney when signed by a constituted attorney, renders the appeal non-est in law and not maintainable. Despite repeated opportunities to cure the defects, the assessee failed to comply or respond. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for being non-maintainable due to lack of proper signature and verification.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether appeals filed before the appellate tribunal in prescribed Form No. 36 are maintainable if the form, grounds of appeal, and verification are not signed by the assessee or a duly authorized person.Whether a person claiming to be a Constituted Attorney can verify and sign the appeal documents without producing a valid Power of Attorney.Whether non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding signature and verification of appeal documents renders the appeal non-maintainable.Whether failure to prosecute the appeal and non-compliance with notices issued by the tribunal justifies dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The appeals filed in Form No. 36 without signature by the assessee or a duly authorized person and without production of a valid Power of Attorney are defective and "not maintainable in law".A person claiming to be a Constituted Attorney must produce a valid Power of Attorney authorizing him to sign and verify the appeal documents; absence of such authorization invalidates the verification.The statutory requirement that the appeal form, grounds of appeal, and verification "shall be signed and verified" by the authorized person is mandatory and non-compliance cannot be condoned.Repeated non-compliance with notices and failure to prosecute the appeal despite sufficient opportunity justifies dismissal of the appeals for want of prosecution.In absence of removal of defects regarding signature and verification, the appeals are dismissed at the threshold without adjudication on merits.

RATIONALE:

The court applied the statutory framework under Sections 140 and 253 of the Income Tax Act and Rules 45 and 47 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which prescribe the form, verification, and authorization requirements for filing appeals before the appellate tribunal.Section 253(6) mandates that appeals be filed in prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner; Rule 47(1) requires that the appeal form, grounds, and verification be signed by the person authorized under Rule 45(3), which cross-refers to Section 140's provisions on verification of returns.Section 140 requires that where a return or appeal is signed by a person other than the assessee, such person must hold a valid Power of Attorney attached to the filing, ensuring the appellate authority is aware of the authorization.The court emphasized that the use of the words "shall be signed and verified" in the statute imposes a mandatory obligation, leaving no scope for waiver or relaxation.The absence of a valid Power of Attorney and failure to cure defects despite multiple notices and opportunities constituted a fundamental procedural defect, rendering the appeals invalid and non-maintainable.The decision reflects adherence to procedural rigor to ensure that appeals are prosecuted by authorized persons, thereby safeguarding the integrity of appellate proceedings.

---