2018 (6) TMI 1772 - AT - Income Tax

Defective appeal - Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), New Delhi while filing the appeal before the Tribunal has not signed the grounds of appeal, which is contrary to the provisions of section 253(2) - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the Appeal is defective and is not maintainable in the eyes of law, hence, we dismiss the present appeal filed by the Revenue, being 'Defective'. But in the interest of justice, we are giving the liberty to the Revenue to file the Application for recall of this order, as per Rules, after rectifying the defect. Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of claim under section 80IA/80IB
2. Disallowance of claim under section 80M
3. Defective appeal filed by the Revenue

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the disallowance of the claim under section 80IA/80IB amounting to ?4,32,65,725 made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal. However, the ITAT noted a procedural irregularity as the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked the signature of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandated by section 253(2) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal as defective and not maintainable in the eyes of the law. As a result, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on this ground.

2. The second issue revolves around the disallowance of the claim under section 80M totaling ?3,97,34,475 by the AO. Similar to the first issue, the Ld. CIT(A) had ruled in favor of the assessee, prompting the Revenue to appeal. However, the ITAT found the appeal to be defective due to the absence of the required signature on the grounds of appeal. Despite acknowledging the defect, the Tribunal granted the Revenue the opportunity to rectify the deficiency by allowing them to file an application for the recall of the order in accordance with the rules. Ultimately, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue concerning the disallowance under section 80M.

3. The final issue pertains to the procedural defect in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The ITAT, while dismissing the appeal on the grounds of being defective, granted the Revenue the liberty to rectify the deficiency by filing an application for the recall of the order as per the rules. This decision showcases the Tribunal's adherence to procedural requirements while also ensuring that the party is not deprived of the opportunity to address the defect and seek redressal. The ITAT's approach reflects a balance between upholding legal standards and providing a fair chance for correction in the interest of justice.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment in this case primarily focused on procedural irregularities in the appeals filed by the Revenue regarding the disallowance of claims under section 80IA/80IB and section 80M. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals due to the noted defects. However, by allowing the Revenue the chance to rectify the deficiencies, the ITAT demonstrated a commitment to fairness and procedural correctness in the adjudication of tax matters.