2021 (6) TMI 1154 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Allowed by ITAT Mumbai Against CIT(A) Order for AY 2015-16

Kem Light Laboratories Private Limited. Versus The ITO-12 (3) (2), Mumbai

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal of the assessee against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the assessment year ... Ex-parte proceedings has dismissed the appeal by CIT(A) of assessee on technical ground i.e. wrong mention of section under which the Order appealed is passed - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground that there is no provision to rectify mistake in Form No.35 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has mentioned section 143(1) instead of section 143(3) of the Act. It is trite law that rules of procedure are meant as hand made of justice to facilitate attainment of justice in an orderly way. Rigid interpretation of rules would sometime result in injustice and travesty of its purpose, therefore, the rules have to be interpreted liberally for advancement of justice. Rejecting appeal by taking pedantic or hyper-technical view on technical defects would result in miscarriage of justice and multiplicity of litigation. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue involved in the appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to rectify the defect(s) in Form No.35. Liberty is granted to the assessee to furnish modified grounds of appeal, if so advised. The impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:Appeal against CIT(A) order on technical ground - Incorrect mention of section in Form No.35 - Ex-parte proceedings - Defect in grounds of appeal - Advancement of justice through liberal interpretation of rules.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee, represented by Shri Rahul Sarda, argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technical ground in ex-parte proceedings. The issue arose from the incorrect mention of section 143(1) instead of section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form No.35. The CIT(A) held that this defect was incurable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, the assessee contended that they had a strong case on merits and requested an opportunity to rectify the mistake in Form No.35.On the other hand, Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, representing the Department, supported the impugned order, highlighting that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were vague and did not align with the relief sought against the assessment order. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal observed that a strict interpretation of procedural rules could lead to injustice and hinder the purpose of justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to interpret the rules liberally to ensure justice is served. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the appeal to be restored for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law.The Tribunal instructed the assessee to rectify the defects in Form No.35 and granted liberty to modify the grounds of appeal if necessary. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment was delivered on June 3, 2021, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice through a balanced and liberal interpretation of procedural rules.