9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of appeals rejected by CIT (Appeals) for not filing demand notice along with the memorandum of appeal. Analysis: The judgment involves two appeals by two assessees concerning the rejection of their appeals by the CIT (Appeals) due to the absence of the demand notice filed along with the memorandum of appeal. The assessees argued that the substantive provisions of section 249(1) and rule 45(1) did not mandate the filing of the original demand notice with the appeal. They contended that the requirement was procedural, as per Form No. 35, which outlined the documents to be submitted with the appeal. The assessees emphasized that they had filed a photocopy of the demand notice initially and later submitted the original after a show-cause notice was issued by the first appellate authority. This, according to the assessees, constituted sufficient compliance with the law. Moreover, the assessees relied on the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471, where the Supreme Court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays if substantial justice could be served. The assessees argued that their technical default in not filing the original demand notice initially was curable and did not warrant the rejection of their appeals. They also referenced the decision in Addl CIT v. Prem Kumar Rastogi [1978] 115 ITR 503, where a similar failure did not render the appeal time-barred if it was filed within the stipulated period. Furthermore, the assessees invoked section 292B, which states that no proceeding shall be invalid due to any mistake, defect, or omission. They contended that the technical mistake of not submitting the original demand notice should not render their appeals incompetent, especially since they had filed a photocopy initially. The ITAT ultimately held that the assessees had sufficiently complied with the law by filing the photocopy and later the original demand notice, thereby curing any defect. As it was a procedural violation, the appeals were allowed, directing the CIT (Appeals) to decide on the merits of the appeals.
|
