TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court stresses appeal clarity, allows amendments without re-verification. Ensure accurate grievance reflection.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Versus The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.</h3> The High Court criticized the Registry for registering defective appeals without objections. It emphasized the need for clear identification of specific ... Defective memorandum of the appeal - Appellate Court not able to understand the nature of the grievance in the appeal - Non registering defective appeal - HELD THAT:- Out of nine appeals, six appeals were preferred by the assessee and three appeals were preferred by the revenue. If the appellant - revenue is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order in all nine appeals by the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant ought to have filed nine separate appeals. In fact it was duty of the appellant to mention in the Memorandum of Appeal, the specific appeal number before the Tribunal in respect of which the present appeal is preferred. Paragraph 5 of the memorandum of the appeal does not refer to such appeal number. In fact, the Registry ought not to have registered these appeals and an objection to that effect ought to have been raised. The memorandum of appeal should be drafted in such a manner that the Appellate Court is able to understand the nature of the grievance in the appeal. If the Appellate Tribunal has decided more than one appeals, the memorandum of appeal before the High Court must state the appeal number before the Appellate Tribunal in respect of which the appellant has a grievance in the appeal preferred before this Court. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Prothonotary and Senior Master who shall ensure that such defective appeals are not registered. Issues:Failure to file separate appeals for each judgment by the Tribunal, Defective appeals registration by the Registry, Amendment sought by the appellant.Issue 1: Failure to file separate appeals for each judgment by the TribunalThe High Court noted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) had decided nine appeals, with six appeals by the assessee and three by the revenue. The appellant, who was the revenue, had not filed separate appeals for each judgment by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that if the appellant was aggrieved by all nine appeals, they should have filed nine separate appeals. It was highlighted that the Memorandum of Appeal did not mention the specific appeal number before the Tribunal for which the present appeal was preferred. The Court stated that the Registry should not have registered these appeals without raising an objection. It was emphasized that the memorandum of appeal should clearly state the nature of the grievance, especially when the Tribunal had decided multiple appeals. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to prevent the registration of such defective appeals in the future.Issue 2: Defective appeals registration by the RegistryThe High Court criticized the Registry for registering the defective appeals without raising any objections. It was pointed out that the memorandum of appeal should have been drafted in a way that clearly indicated the specific appeal number before the Appellate Tribunal for which the appellant had a grievance. The Court stressed the importance of ensuring that the Appellate Court could understand the nature of the grievance in the appeal. The Court directed that steps be taken to prevent the registration of such defective appeals in the future.Issue 3: Amendment sought by the appellantThe appellant sought leave to amend the appeals. The Court granted leave to amend and directed that the appellant carry out the necessary amendments by a specified date. The Court dispensed with the requirement of re-verification during the amendment process. The appeals were scheduled for fresh admission after the necessary amendments were made.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of failure to file separate appeals for each judgment by the Tribunal, defective appeals registration by the Registry, and the amendment sought by the appellant, as addressed by the Bombay High Court in its judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
