AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence 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 filed by the Appellant is a valid appeal and CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merit. (b) The CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant to represent its case. The Appellant submit that the CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal shall be set aside to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in making disallowance of long term capital loss of Rs. 5,04,13,516/- on sale of shares of BBIPL Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd holding the same as artificial loss. The Appellant submit that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the loss on sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant and at the most disallowance can be restricted to the extent of exempt dividend income earned by the Appellant. (d) The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in considering strategic investment of Rs. 5,95,81,000/- made in subsidiary while computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D. The Appellant submits that the CIT(A) ought to have excluded strategic investment made in subsidiary while computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D. 6. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the action of the AO in 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wrongly mentioned. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the prescribed form for filing of the appeal was digitally signed by the aforesaid director, and the only inadvertent mistake which therein had crept was the wrong mentioning of the name of the assessee company in the form of verification. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was averred by the ld. A.R that merely for the aforesaid inadvertent typographical mistake the CIT(A) without affording any opportunity to the assessee to correct the same ought not to have dismissed the appeal by treating the same as invalid. It was, thus, submitted by the ld. A.R that the matter in all fairness may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the appeal by treating the same as invalid. Admittedly, the provisions of Sec. 140 r.w. Rule 45 do require a managing director/director to sign and verify the appeal, but merely for the reason that on account 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, fair and equitable to provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the irregularity in regard to compliance to the procedural rules unless the non-compliance to the procedure is of such a nature that it necessarily creates a bar or takes....