Curable signature defect in appeal papers cannot defeat maintainability where verification and memo were duly signed.

A missing signature on the annexed grounds of appeal was treated as a curable irregularity where the memo of appeal and verification were duly signed by the managing partner. Rule 45(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was applied as directory in this context, so the omission did not go to the root of maintainability and could not justify dismissal without allowing rectification. The appeal was therefore required to be disposed of on merits rather than rejected for the signature defect.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal could be dismissed solely because the grounds of appeal were not signed by the managing partner, despite the memo of appeal and verification being duly signed, and whether such omission was a fatal defect under Rule 45(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The memo of appeal and its verification were signed by the managing partner, while only the annexed grounds lacked that signature. The requirement under Rule 45(2) was treated as directory in this context, and the omission was held to be a curable irregularity rather than a defect going to the root of the maintainability of the appeal. The appellate authority ought to have permitted rectification instead of rejecting the appeal.

Conclusion: The omission to sign the grounds of appeal was not fatal, and dismissal of the appeal on that ground was unsustainable. The matter was sent back for disposal on merits.

---