CASE LAWS DETAILS
DECIDED BY: ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH `D’,
IN THE CASE OF: Cairn Energy India West BV Vs. ADIT, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 86, 457 & 459/Ahd./2010, DECIDED ON March 26, 2010
13. We have heard both the parties, gone through the orders of the authorities below and also perused the material placed before us. It is pertinent to note that all the appeals were signed filed in time and were in the prescribed form. These forms were (though borne scanned – signature) by the person who is duly authorised. The mere fact that the assessee has not stated the date in appeal (s) memo and appeals were filed by the scanned–signature, appeals can only said to be irregularity/ defective and said irregular/ defects was curable one. It is well settled law that there may be a mistake or defect but once that defect is cured, it no longer persists and after curing of a defect the same can definitely be acted upon. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Brijlal Vs. Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC) observed that provisions of IT Act, 1961 should be applied in a humane and considered manner. Once the assessee has removed the defect, looking to the peculiar facts of all the three our opinion, the Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have decided all the three appeals of the assessee(s) on merits instead of becoming hyper technical in procedural matter. We, therefore, hold that once the assessee has filed fresh appeal (s) memo which borne the signature in ink, date and place, etc. the Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have treated that defects removed. Against one order, only one appeal can be filed along with the original notice of demand. We are, therefore afraid that the Learned CIT (Appeals) in separate proceedings dismissed all the fresh three appeals on the ground that the assessee has not enclosed the original Notice of Demand. As a matter of fact, with the fresh memo, original notice of demand cannot be furnished because these were already furnished along with original appeal(s) memo. The appeals filed by the assessee with the original notice of demand, in our opinion, are valid subject to removal of defect, if any, which the Learned CIT (Appeals) may point out. Once the defect is removed, the Learned CIT (Appeals) clearly erred in dismissing the appeal(s) non est/invalid and dismissing in limine. Against one assessment order, assessee can file only one appeal. In these cases, both the assessees, can file only one appeal. In these cases, both the assessees, during the course of hearing of appeals, filed fresh memo of appeals. In our opinion, the sole purpose of filing fresh memos was to remove the defects. Therefore, the Learned CIT (Appeals) clearly erred in holding that fresh memo rectifying the defects filed by both the assessees shall form separate proceedings and shall be dealt with separately on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order (s) of the Learned CIT (Appeals) and direct him to treat that both the assessees have removed the defects by filing fresh memos. The Learned CIT (Appeals) accordingly directed to admit and decide all the appeals on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides.