2005 (11) TMI 203 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed before the CIT(A).
2. Validity of the signature on Form No. 35.
3. Applicability of Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 45(2) of the Income-tax Rules.
5. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal Filed Before the CIT(A):
The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was maintainable. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, stating that the grounds of appeal were lengthy and argumentative, and Form No. 35 was not signed by the Managing Director or a Director, which was against the provisions of relevant rules and sections of the Income-tax legislation. This decision was challenged by the assessee, arguing that the CIT(A) should have given a specific opportunity to rectify the defect in Form No. 35.

2. Validity of the Signature on Form No. 35:
The Form No. 35 was signed by the Senior Vice President (Finance) of the company, not by the Managing Director or a Director. The assessee contended that the Directors were out of the country, and the Vice President was authorized by the Board to sign. The CIT(A) found this authorization insufficient, as per Rule 45(2) of the Income-tax Rules and Section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act, only a Managing Director or a Director could sign and verify the form. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the statutory requirement for compliance by specified persons.

3. Applicability of Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that the non-signing of the Memorandum of Appeal by the Directors was "Not invalid" within the meaning of Section 292B, which states that a return of income, etc., should not be invalid on certain grounds. The Tribunal, however, found this provision irrelevant to the case, as it applies to the filing of returns, which is mandatory, unlike the discretionary nature of filing an appeal.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Rule 45(2) of the Income-tax Rules:
The Tribunal examined Rule 45(2), which mandates that the form of appeal and the form of verification should be signed and verified by the person authorized to sign the return of income under Section 140. The Tribunal concluded that the Senior Vice President (Finance) was not competent to sign and verify the appeal form, and the Board's resolution could not override statutory provisions.

5. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 17 days, and the affidavit explaining the delay was signed by the Senior Vice President (Finance) instead of the Managing Director or a Director. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given the assessee opportunities to rectify the defect, which were not availed. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter for a de novo decision, subject to the assessee fulfilling specific conditions, including rectifying the defect in Form No. 35 and paying costs to the Department.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory requirements and procedural rules. The assessee was given an opportunity to rectify the defects and re-present the appeal before the CIT(A), subject to specific conditions, including paying costs to the Department. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the principles laid down in various judicial precedents, particularly the case of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., and the need to ensure procedural compliance in the appellate process.