TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal filed by the appellant on 22-3-1999 on the ground that the appeal was invalid and incompetent. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) having held in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that 'the appeal form and the verification column has been signed by Mr. R.M. Sanghnani, an authorized signatory/gravely erred in holding that the appeal was invalid merely because the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. R.M. Sangnani (actually the correct name is Mr. R.M. Sangani) was not enclosed with the appeal Memo in Form No. 35. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that no proper authorized representative of the appellant appeared before him on 25-9-2002, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 7014/Mum./2002 : 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-XXXI, Mumbai [hereinafter called CIT(A), for short] erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on 22-3-1999 on the ground that the appeal was invalid and incompetent. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) having held in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that "the appeal form and the verification column has been signed by Mr. R.M. Sanghnani, an authorized signatory" gravely erred in holding that the appeal was invalid merely because the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. R.M. Sangnani (actually the correct name is Mr. R.M. Sangani) was not enclosed with the appeal Memo in Form No. 35. 3.That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle 7 of the Double Taxation Treaty between India and Mauritius." 2. Since these appeals were heard together these are being disposed off by the single consolidated Order for the sake of convenience. 3. Appeal Nos. 7013 & 7014/Mum./2002 - Though the assessee has raised various grounds in these appeals assailing the order of the CIT(A), but, the main ground is with regard to the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that Form No. 35 i.e., Memorandum of Appeal was not signed by an authorized person. 4. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. Even if the CIT(A) was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch company to do so, which shall be attached to the return. Meaning thereby, an appeal to the first appellate authority should be filed in a same manner a return of income filed before the assessing authority. But, in the instant case, the appeal filed by the assessee in Form No. 35 was signed by Shri R.M. Sanghnani and no copy of authority in his favour was annexed thereto. Since the appeal was not accompanied along with the Power of Attorney in favour of the signatory, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal being not signed by authorized signatory. 5. During the course of the hearing of the appeal on 5-1-2006, we have directed the assessee to produce the Power of Attorney duly executed in favour of Shri R.M. Sanghnani who has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the powers which were conferred upon him to some other person. He was only a Special Power of Attorney and was not authorized to execute a further Power of Attorney or letter of authorities in favour of some other person to sign the return of income or the appeals on behalf of the assessee company. 6. We have carefully examined the provisions of rule 45(2) of the I.T. Rules and section 140 of the I.T. Act and we find that according to rule 45(2), an appeal to the CIT(A) shall be made in Form No. 35 and the grounds of appeal and the form of verification appended thereto relating to an assessee shall be signed and verified by the person who is authorized to sign the return of income under section 140 of the I.T. Act. As per section 140 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a duly authorized signatory. But, unfortunately, the assessee could not file any Power of Attorney in this regard. He, however, filed one Letter of Authority executed by Ravi Tandon in favour of Mr. R.M. Sanghnani, Manager, Cooperate Finance and Taxation, but, we do not find any documents whereby Mr. Ravi Tandon was authorized to appoint or nominate Mr. R.M. Sanghnani to sign the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on this score that appeal was not signed by a authorized signatory vide its order dated 12-9-2002 and thereafter this appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 14h October, 2003 and now the appeal was finally taken up for hearing on 9-1-2006 and assessee has plenty of time to trace out Power of Attor....