2023 (8) TMI 1011 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Assessment passed by AO - Form 35 are not matching to each other - CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal that it is a deficient/defective appeal filed against show cause notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.ws. 271(1)(b) - HELD THAT - As the assessee has raised the grounds before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act however, in the form 35 the assessee has mentioned section under which the order was passed by the ITO as 271(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, it is apparent that there is a mistake in form 35 if it is considered in light of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. In the statement of facts the assessee has clearly stated his grievance against the assessment order passed by the AO. Therefore we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistake in form 35 and then decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) due to technical reasons and the subsequent decision by the Appellate Tribunal to remand the matter for rectification.

Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A):
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of technical deficiencies. The CIT(A) noted that the appeal was deficient as it was filed against a notice under a different section than the one mentioned in the form. The CIT(A) concluded that the appeal had serious deficiencies and was not in accordance with the relevant sections of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal:
The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the Departmental Representative, observed that there was a mistake in the form filed by the assessee regarding the section under which the order was passed. Despite this discrepancy, the Tribunal found that the assessee had clearly stated grievances against the assessment order in the statement of facts. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake in the form. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for rectification based on the technical discrepancies in the appeal filing process highlights the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in legal proceedings. The Tribunal's emphasis on ensuring that the assessee is given a fair opportunity to correct errors underscores the principles of natural justice in tax dispute resolution.