TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove fatal to the proceedings initiated by the assessee and it would be in the interest of justice, fair and equitable to provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the irregularity in regard to compliance to the procedural rules unless the non-compliance to the procedure is of such a nature that it necessarily creates a bar or takes away a substantive right vested in the other side. Accordingly, in a case where the appeal is filed in accordance with the form but is not signed by the person specified under Rule 45, we are of the considered view that in all fairness the appellant should be granted an opportunity to correct this error rather than dismissing of the appeal as not maintainable when the same is otherwise complete in all respects and has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. To sum up, the nonadherence of some part of the rule per se may not be a ground for rejecting the memorandum of appeal and it will be more appropriate for the appellate authority concerned to have granted an opportunity to the assessee to remove the defect, if any, provided the appeal was in substantial compliance to the provisions of Rule 45 and has been filed within the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances of the case and in law, the loss on sale of share of BBIPL Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd shall be allowed genuine and deductible long term capital loss. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in making disallowance of interest expense of ₹ 1,60,55,000/-u/s 37(1) of the Act by holding that same relates to unsecured loans taken during the preceding year and which were treated as nongenuine in the assessment order of preceding year. The Appellant submit that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have allowed the interest expense of ₹ 1,60,55,000/- as deductible revenue expense. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in making the disallowance of Bad Debts Written off of ₹ 2,88,66,794/-. The Appellant submit that the bad debts are incurred in the normal course of carrying on business and hence same shall be allowed as deductible business expenditure u/s 36(l)(vii) of the I.T. Act. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the bad debts written off shall be allowed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of ₹ 1,44,96,792/- disallowed u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. The Appellant submits that disallowance u/s 14A r. w. rule 8D of the Act computed under Chapter IV of the Act has no application to books profit computed under Chapter XII-B of the Act and hence addition made by the AO shall be deleted. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend the aforesaid ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of making investments in shares and immovable properties, finance activities and trading in shares including derivatives had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013, declaring a total loss of ₹ 3,38,04,124/-. Subsequently, the assessee had e-filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2015, declaring a total loss of ₹ 4,90,00,948/-. The case of the assessee was thereafter selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2) of the Act. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated -.03.2016 assessing the total income of the assessee company at ₹ 7,24,04,830/- under the normal provisions, while for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o drive home their respective contentions. As is discernible from the order of the CIT(A), the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by him by treating it as invalid, for the reason, that the same as per the mandate of Sec.140 r.w. Rule 45 was not verified and digitally signed either by the managing director or any other director of the assessee company. Admittedly, the CIT(A) had correctly observed that an appeal in the case of a company is required to be verified by the managing director thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing director is not able to verify the same or where there is no managing director, by any director thereof. Insofar the claim of the counsel for the assessee that the appeal was verified and digitally signed by the director of the assessee company, viz. Shri Darshansingh Balbirsingh Sandhu, and the name of the assessee company on account of an inadvertent mistake was wrongly mentioned in the form of verification, the same prima facie does not appear to be correct. On a perusal of the Form No. 35 , we find, that not only in the form of verification the name of the assessee company is mentioned, but, in fact even the digital signature us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bar or takes away a substantive right vested in the other side. Accordingly, in a case where the appeal is filed in accordance with the form but is not signed by the person specified under Rule 45, we are of the considered view that in all fairness the appellant should be granted an opportunity to correct this error rather than dismissing of the appeal as not maintainable when the same is otherwise complete in all respects and has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. To sum up, the nonadherence of some part of the rule per se may not be a ground for rejecting the memorandum of appeal and it will be more appropriate for the appellate authority concerned to have granted an opportunity to the assessee to remove the defect, if any, provided the appeal was in substantial compliance to the provisions of Rule 45 and has been filed within the period of limitation. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Hope Textiles Limited (2006) 287 ITR 321 (M.P) and the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Remfry Sons Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 1 (Del). 7. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
