Case Law Details
Rivendell PE Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The issue under consideration is whether the submission of Form 35 alongwith scanned copy of signature at the time of filing CIT appeal is sustainable in law?
In the present case, DRP has observed that submitting a verification form with the scanned copy of the signature is as good as submitting of unsigned paper since the scanned copy of the signature has no legal sanctity. Furthermore, it is obvious that the person scanning signature in this manner was other than the original signatory and hence if this is allowed as a mode of validation of the document, anyone can act on behalf of some other person by scanning others signature as also observed by the DRP. The said Form No. 35A claimed to be filed in terms of Rule 4 of the DRP rules had not mentioned whether the same was verified with original signature for the reason as claimed by the assessee and hence the said application has been rejected in limine by the DRP.
ITAT states that, in the order passed by the DRP they find no observation as regards the reason explained by the assessee for filing the Form No. 35A with the scanned signature. Rather, they find that when the concerned Director was not available at Mauritius, the assessee with bona fide intention got the said form signed by the other Director of the company available in United States of America and filed the scanned document thereon in due date. Even it is a defect in the eyes of law, according to us, it is procedural defects and curable in nature, since procedures are handmade of justice. Further, ITAT have analysed the conduct and mind of the assessee and find the activities suggest inescapably that assessee wants to make use of the benefits of the office of DRP. They are preparedness of the relevant papers in Form no. 35A, signed the same in time, scanned them, sent the office in India for filing before the DRP and ensured filing them before the expiry of the due date i.e. within 30 days from the date of the draft order of the AO. In that case, why the same was not replaced by the assessee by filing Original Form No. 35A. As discussed above, ITAT find, the same is not without reason and the same being the change in the Representative. As such, the furnishing of the scanned papers and replacing them with hard copies or soft copies, if any, is now not new to the Department. Further, now, the Revenue started accepting the e-filing of application/appeals these days. Why not this also should not be deemed as such but for the procedural defects, if any. Considering the same, ITAT are of the view that the decisions of the first appellate authority in treating the application non-est and dismissing the same as in limine are unsustainable in law. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
