1992 (12) TMI 104 - AT - Wealth-tax

Appeals Allowed for Decision on Merits, Second Set Dismissed as Infructuous

Jaykumar B. Patil. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax.

The Tribunal allowed the first set of appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the CWT(A)'s orders and restoring the appeals for a decision on ... Closing Stock, Market Value Issues Involved:1. Validity of the General Power of Attorney.2. Timeliness and validity of the appeal filings.3. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.4. Rectification of defects in the appeal process.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the General Power of Attorney:The primary issue is whether the General Power of Attorney executed by the appellant was valid. The CWT(A) noted that the stamp paper used for the power of attorney was dated 18th October 1989, while the execution was on 3rd April 1991. This was deemed invalid under section 52B of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Consequently, any signature made on the strength of such a power of attorney was not accepted as valid under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. Timeliness and Validity of the Appeal Filings:The appeals were initially filed by the power of attorney holder within the statutory time limit. However, the CWT(A) dismissed these appeals as defective because they were not signed by the assessee himself, as required by Rule 5(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 read with section 15A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee later filed a fresh set of appeals, duly signed by him, on the same date as the hearing of the original appeals.3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:The CWT(A) dismissed the fresh set of appeals filed on 27-9-1991 as out of time because no separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned since the original appeals were filed within time. The CWT(A) rejected this argument, emphasizing that it was not the duty of the appellate authority to call upon the assessee to furnish an application for condonation of delay.4. Rectification of Defects in the Appeal Process:The assessee contended that the defect pointed out by the CWT(A) was curable and that the amendment should relate back to the date when the memorandum of appeal was originally filed. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Sheonath Singh v. CIT and the Patna High Court in Gouri Kumari Devi v. CIT, which held that such defects were mere irregularities that could be rectified.Combined Judgment Analysis:Validity of the General Power of Attorney:The Tribunal considered whether the failure to sign the Memorandum of Appeal by the assessee was an illegality or a mere irregularity. The Tribunal opined that the substance of the transaction should be considered over the technicality of the Stamp Act. Even if the stamp paper was invalid, it was a defect that could be rectified and was not fatal to the appeal's competency.Timeliness and Validity of the Appeal Filings:The Tribunal noted that the original set of appeals were filed within the statutory time limit and that the defect was curable. The Tribunal emphasized that the omission or failure to sign the appeal was a mere irregularity, which could be rectified with retrospective effect, as supported by the judgments in Sheonath Singh and Gouri Kumari Devi.Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, which laid down principles for condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the fresh set of appeals should have been condoned, as the original set of appeals was filed within the statutory time.Rectification of Defects in the Appeal Process:The Tribunal held that the defect in the stamp paper was a mere irregularity that could be cured by filing valid appeal papers. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority should have given the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect rather than dismissing the appeals as incompetent. The Tribunal set aside the CWT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for a decision on merits, promoting substantial justice.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the first set of appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the CWT(A)'s orders and restoring the appeals for a decision on merits. The second set of appeals was dismissed as infructuous, as they were part and parcel of the first set of appeals and related back to the original filing date.