Misdescription in memorandum of appeal does not defeat the statutory right where the signer was otherwise competent to act.

A memorandum of appeal is not rendered invalid merely because the signer is described as a partner instead of as karta of the Hindu undivided family, where the person was otherwise competent to act for the concerned assessee. The description was treated as a misdescription only, and such an error could not defeat the statutory right of appeal. On that basis, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal at the threshold, and the appeal was held to be valid in law and entertainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was valid and entertainable when the memorandum was signed by a person who described himself as a partner of the firm instead of as karta of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the capacity in which Vir Bhan signed the memorandum. The Court held that he was competent to agitate the matter either as representative of the Hindu undivided family or as representative of the firm. The description used in the memorandum was treated as a misdescription only, and such misdescription could not defeat the statutory right of appeal. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in rejecting the appeal in limine.

Conclusion: The appeal was valid in law and entertainable by the Tribunal.

---