TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one Sri B.F, Das for and on behalf of the company preferring appeal against the two assessment orders of the ITM stated above. The CIT (A) observed in the impugned order that as per rule 45(2)(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the same should have been signed by the Managing Director of the company or by any Director of the company and since the same was signed by the Advocate it was not in accordance with rule 45(2)(c) and, therefore, he dismissed the appeals as being incompetent and not as per law. 3. At the time of hearing on 5-12-1991 Sri S.D. Tiwari, Chartered Accountant, who is one of the general power of attorney Agent from one Sri C. L. Mittal, a Director of the appellant company, appeared and submitted that Sri B.K. Das, Advocate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttee in complying with the various statutory provisions. 4. The learned departmental representative relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and urged that the appeals were incompetent and the CIT(A) was right in not entertaining same. 5. We have heard both the parties. It is worthwhile here to refer to rule 45(2)(c) as it existed at the time of filing of the appeal. It says as under : " (c) In the case of a company by the Managing Director thereof or where for any unavoidable reason such Managing Director is not able to sign and verify the return or where there is no Managing Director by any Director thereof." Thus, strictly applying the above rule the appeal memo should have been signed by the Managing Director or in his absence by any d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the signing of the appeal memo by Sri B.K. Das, Advocate was not in conformity with the provisions of rule 45(2)(c) yet we are of the opinion that it was only a defect and an irregularity which can even at the appellate stage, be removed or cured. In our view, where a legal practitioner signs a memorandum of appeal though assuming he had no authority to do so, can only be deemed as a trivial or simple defect but not material defect or irregularity going to the root of the matter effecting the validity of the appeal or the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) to entertain the appeal itself. It was only an irregularity which the CIT(A) on a consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the case could have suo motu itself directed removal of such triv....