Tribunal allows appeal, directs acceptance of original form, recognizing curable procedural defects

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the DRP to accept the original Form No. 35A for further proceedings. It recognized the curability of procedural defects due to a scanned signature, citing precedents. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the COVID-19 lockdown as an exceptional circumstance for the delayed order pronouncement, aligning with the decision in DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the unprecedented nature of the lockdown, justifying the delay in the order pronouncement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Form No. 35A filed by the assessee with a scanned signature.
2. Procedural defects and their curability.
3. Acceptance of e-filing by the Revenue.
4. Timeliness of the order pronouncement in light of COVID-19 lockdown.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Form No. 35A filed by the assessee with a scanned signature:
The assessee, a resident of Mauritius, filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil for the A.Y. 2015-16. The A.O. issued a draft assessment order computing income at Rs. Nil but disallowed short-term and long-term capital losses as non-genuine. The assessee filed an objection via Form No. 35A, but the DRP noted that the form was not verified as per the procedure since it contained a scanned signature. The DRP rejected the objection in limine, prompting the assessee to appeal.

2. Procedural defects and their curability:
The assessee argued that the scanned signature was due to a cyclone in Mauritius, which prevented the original signatories from signing. The assessee submitted that the procedural defect was curable and cited a similar case (MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. JDIT(IT) Mumbai) where the Tribunal ruled that procedural defects are curable. The Tribunal agreed, stating that procedures are handmade of justice, and procedural defects, if any, are curable in nature.

3. Acceptance of e-filing by the Revenue:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue has started accepting e-filing of documents and applications. It found that rejecting Form 35A due to a scanned signature was unsustainable, especially when the Revenue accepts e-filing. The Tribunal quashed the DRP's order and directed the DRP to accept the original Form No. 35A and proceed with the matter, giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

4. Timeliness of the order pronouncement in light of COVID-19 lockdown:
The hearing concluded on 08.01.2020, but the order was pronounced on 28.07.2020. The Tribunal addressed the delay, citing the nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19 as an extraordinary circumstance. Referring to the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd., the Tribunal excluded the lockdown period from the 90-day limit for pronouncement of orders. It emphasized that the lockdown was an unprecedented situation, disrupting judicial work, and thus, the delay was justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the DRP to accept the original Form No. 35A and proceed with the matter. It also addressed the procedural issue of delayed order pronouncement, considering the COVID-19 lockdown as an extraordinary circumstance.

---