Curable defect in appeal presentation: absence of written authority did not invalidate the special appeal.

An appeal presented by a person without a written authority or vakalatnama was held not to be improperly filed where the statutory scheme allowed presentation by the appellant, pleader, or agent, and also by registered post. The rules treated an agent as a person authorised in writing, but the memorandum was signed by the assessing authority and filed after consultation with the presenter. Any defect was regarded as curable through subsequent authorisation, and later Revenue Board practice supported that approach. The special appeal was therefore treated as properly presented, with the issue answered in favour of the department and against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the special appeal was improperly presented because it was filed by a person who did not hold a written authority or vakalatnama.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted an appeal to be presented by the appellant, his pleader, or his agent, and also allowed it to be sent by registered post. The rules defined an agent as a person authorised in writing, but the facts showed that the memorandum of appeal was signed by the assessing authority and was filed after consultation with the person who presented it. The defect, if any, was treated as curable, and the later view of the Revenue Board also supported the approach that such an irregularity could be removed by subsequent authorisation.

Conclusion: The special appeal was not improperly presented and the question was answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee.

---