Tribunal deems scanned Form 35A issue curable under Section 292B, remands case for merits decision.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the scanned copy of Form 35A was a curable defect under Section 292B. The DRP's decision to dismiss the application was deemed unsustainable, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of the application filed by the appellant in Form 35A as invalid and non-est.
2. DRP's failure to adjudicate the appellant's case on merits.
3. Consideration of the defect in Form 35A as curable.
4. Whether treating the application as non-est rendered the assessment time-barred.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of the application filed by the appellant in Form 35A as invalid and non-est:
The primary issue was whether the DRP was justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant in Form 35A as invalid and non-est because it was a scanned copy and not the original. The appellant argued that the defect was curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, which states that no return, assessment, notice, summons, or other proceeding shall be invalid merely due to any mistake, defect, or omission if it is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act. The Tribunal found that the expression "other proceedings" in Section 292B is broad enough to include the filing of the application to the DRP. It was noted that the scanned copy was duly signed and filed within the prescribed time. The Tribunal held that the DRP's decision to treat the scanned copy as non-est and dismiss the application in limine was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the appellant on this issue.

2. DRP's failure to adjudicate the appellant's case on merits:
The appellant raised grounds stating that the DRP failed to adjudicate the case on merits. The Tribunal noted that the DRP did not address the other grounds raised by the appellant and only focused on the preliminary issue of the validity of the scanned application. The Tribunal directed that the remaining grounds raised in the appeal be remanded to the file of the DRP/AO for a decision on merits, ensuring a speaking order on each of the issues raised.

3. Consideration of the defect in Form 35A as curable:
The appellant argued that the defect in filing a scanned copy of Form 35A was curable and relied on various decisions supporting this view. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention, emphasizing that the intent of the assessee was clear and that the defect was indeed curable under Section 292B. The Tribunal highlighted that the DRP failed to issue a defect notice in a timely manner and only raised the issue during the hearing proceedings, which was not appropriate.

4. Whether treating the application as non-est rendered the assessment time-barred:
The appellant contended that treating the application as non-est would render the assessment time-barred. The Tribunal examined the timeline and found that the appellant had filed the scanned copy within the prescribed 30 days and was prepared to replace it with the original. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order made by the AO should not be considered time-barred if the application was treated as non-est. The Tribunal held that the DRP's decision to dismiss the application as non-est and the subsequent assessment order were not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the scanned copy of Form 35A was a curable defect under Section 292B and that the DRP's decision to dismiss the application in limine was unsustainable. The Tribunal remanded the remaining grounds to the DRP/AO for a decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order was pronounced on 19th October 2016.

---