Principal Officer of University to Verify ITR & File Income Tax Appeal: ITAT dismisses Rajiv Gandhi University’s Case for Procedural Defect [Read Order]

The Bangalore Benchof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that only the Principal Officer authorised under law can verify and file an income tax appeal as per rule 47(1) & 45(3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962; ITAT accordingly dismissed an appeal filed by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences as not maintainable due to the procedural defect.

The matter pertains to the assessment order against Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee had appealed the assessment before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 22.11.2023.

The NFAC only partially allowed the appeal, leading to this present appeal before the ITAT.

ITAT noted that the form no.35 filed before NFAC was verified by the Finance Officer, and that the Form No.36 in the present appeal was verified by the Assistant Registrar.

Upon examination, the Tribunal noted that Section 140 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 47(1) and Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules mandates that the person competent to verify the return of income is also the person authorised to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

The Bench of Prashant Maharishi, Vice-President, and Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member observed that for a university, the return of income is required to be signed by the Principal Officer, who in this case is the Registrar of the University.

When questioned, the authorized representative was unable to verify why different officers had verified the return of income and the filing of appeal before the NFAC and now, the ITAT.

The Tribunal further noted that as per Section 13 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, the Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University, further convoluting the person authorised to verify the return and file appeals.

Accordingly, the ITAT Bench held that since the appeal was not verified and filed by the competent Principal Officer as required under law, the appeal was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

However, the Tribunal noted that no injustice should be done to the Assessee and granted them liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with the prescribed rules, along with an application for condonation of delay for consideration.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates