TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1.(a) The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the appeal holding that the Form No.35 has been verified by Appellant 'M/s Business Match Services (India) Private Limited' and has neither been verified by the Managing Director nor any other Director and hence the appeal is not valid. The Appellant submit that Form No.35 has duly been verified and digitally signed by the Director of the Appellant 'Darshansingh Balbirsingh Sandhu' and the name of the Appellant 'M/s Business Match Services (India) Private Limited' typed in Form of verification mistakenly; and hence the appeal file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in making the disallowance of Bad Debts Written off of Rs. 2,88,66,794/-. The Appellant submit that the bad debts are incurred in the normal course of carrying on business and hence same shall be allowed as deductible business expenditure u/s 36(l)(vii) of the I.T. Act. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the bad debts written off shall be allowed as business loss u/s 29 of the I.T. Act. 5.(a) The CIT(A) erred not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in making the disallowance of Rs. 1,47,34,880/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the I. T. Act r.w.r. 8D of the I.T. Rule as against disallowance of Rs. 9,60,000/- made by the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making the disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 1,22,95,585/- u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act made by the AO holding that interest bearing funds are used for giving interest free loans and advances. The Appellant submit that on the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant and in law, no disallowance of interest expenses is warranted and the CIT(A) shall be directed to delete the disallowances made u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act 7. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in adding expenditure of Rs. 1,44,96,792/- disallowed u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. The Appellant submits that disallowance u/s 14A r. w. rule 8D of the Act computed und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be verified by the managing director, or any other director, the CIT(A) for the aforesaid infirmity held the appeal as invalid and dismissed the same. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted, that though the appeal e-filed with the CIT(A) on 24.01.2018 in 'Form No. 35' was digitally signed and verified by the director of the assessee company viz. Shri Darshansingh Balbirsingh Sandhu, however, in the form of verification the name of the assessee company was on account of an inadvertent mistake wrongly mentioned. In sum and substance, it was the clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(A) had correctly observed that an appeal in the case of a company is required to be verified by the managing director thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing director is not able to verify the same or where there is no managing director, by any director thereof. Insofar the claim of the counsel for the assessee that the appeal was verified and digitally signed by the director of the assessee company, viz. Shri Darshansingh Balbirsingh Sandhu, and the name of the assessee company on account of an inadvertent mistake was wrongly mentioned in the form of verification, the same prima facie does not appear to be correct. On a perusal of the 'Form No. 35', we find, that not only in the form of verification the name of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of an inadvertent mistake the same had been digitally signed by the appellant company itself cannot justify the summarily rejection of the appeal by treating the same as invalid without confronting the said infirmity to the appellant. It is a settled canon of interpretation of procedural law that normally its non-adherence does not result in illegality which would render the appeal incompetent, unless such non-compliance related to a substantive provision and had caused prejudice to the other party and may have the effect of taking away a settled right. In fact, we are of the considered view that law relating to procedure may always not prove fatal to the proceedings initiated by the assessee and it would be in the interest of justice, fai....