TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause 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, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal (wrongly mentioned as 12-9-2002 in the impugned appellate order) in view of the fact that Mr. Kashmira Seth holding a valid Letter of Authority had appeared before the learned CIT(A) on that date. 4.That without prejudice to the ground of appeal No. 3 above, on the facts and the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5.That the learned JCIT, S.R. 12, Mumbai erred in restricting the claim of depreciation on Jack-up Rig to Rs. 12,80,28,059 by applying exchange rates prevailing on the last date of respective previous years of additions/upgradation against Rs. 15,88,18,297 claimed by the appellant on the basis of exchange rate prevailing on the last date of the previous year (relevant to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he last date of the previous year relevant to assessment year 1995-96. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the depreciation be allowed in full as claimed by the appellant. 6.That the said learned Assessing Officer erred in making the addition of Bank charges and interest of USD 366,677 without assigning any reason for non-admissibility of the said expenditure. That it be held that the said expenditure is fully allowable under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act and in terms of clause 3 of article 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 affordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he hearing was adjourned in order to satisfy us that Mr. Sanghnani was holding a valid Power of Attorney when the appeal was filed. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 9-1-2006 and on 9-1-2006 the assessee has filed a photo copy of Power of Attorney which was executed on a letter head of Cartier Shipping Co. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Ravi Tandon c/o. Amer Ship Management Ltd. through which Mr. Ravi Tandon was constituted to be true and lawful attorney and was authorized to do execute and perform all acts and deeds in connection with the completion and signing of Income-tax return forms, submission of these to the tax authorities, handling enquiries and negotiations with the authorities, appearing before the tax authorities, Tribunals or Courts and making submissions from time to time, appointing consultants and advisors to represent the Company before the authorities and accepting and agreeing notice of assessments on behalf of the company and to do generally everything and sign all necessary papers on the Company's behalf for the aforesaid purposes. Meaning thereby, Mr. Ravi Tandon was appointed as a Power of Attorney though not executed on a requisite stamp paper, only to sign ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... R.M. Sanghnani who has signed the appeals to satisfy us that the appeal was signed by 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 Attorney in favour of Mr. R.M. Sanghnani if executed ever before. Since assessee could not place any evidence on record to prove that R.M. Sanghnani was authorised signatory to sign the appeal before the CIT(A) we find no justification in remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of appeal on merit as prayed by the learned counsel for the assessee. We....