https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60606 The appeals were filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 29-10-1987, which dismissed the appeals as incompetent due to irregularities in the signing of the appeal memo by an advocate instead of the Managing Director or any Director of the company as required by rule 45(2)(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal held that the rule was procedural and not mandatory, allowing for the cure of such irregularities at the appellate stage. It directed the CIT(A) to accept the appeals upon filing a fresh appeal memo signed by any present director, emphasizing the rule's directory nature to ensure justice and uphold parties' rights. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:47:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60606 The appeals were filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 29-10-1987, which dismissed the appeals as incompetent due to irregularities in the signing of the appeal memo by an advocate instead of the Managing Director or any Director of the company as required by rule 45(2)(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal held that the rule was procedural and not mandatory, allowing for the cure of such irregularities at the appellate stage. It directed the CIT(A) to accept the appeals upon filing a fresh appeal memo signed by any present director, emphasizing the rule's directory nature to ensure justice and uphold parties' rights. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60606