https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409330 The Court held that an appeal filed without complying with mandatory provisions is not valid, rendering it non-est in the eye of the law. The rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent as void ab initio prevented the 1st respondent from exercising Revision power under Section 264. The Court referred to precedents from Madras and Kerala High Courts and Circular No.367 issued by the CBDT, emphasizing the binding nature of CBDT circulars. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the 1st respondent's order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration within three months, without awarding costs. en-us Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jul 2021 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409330 The Court held that an appeal filed without complying with mandatory provisions is not valid, rendering it non-est in the eye of the law. The rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent as void ab initio prevented the 1st respondent from exercising Revision power under Section 264. The Court referred to precedents from Madras and Kerala High Courts and Circular No.367 issued by the CBDT, emphasizing the binding nature of CBDT circulars. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the 1st respondent's order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration within three months, without awarding costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409330