MALANI TENDU LEAVES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE appellants -assessees have filed their return of income for the year 1993 -94 on 27th Oct., 1993, declaring the total income as nil. On being assessed the AO passed an order of assessment dt. 29th March, 1996, determining the income at Rs. 6,09,000 (ITA No. 2 of 2000) and Rs. 5,38,444 (ITA No. 3 of 2000) and passed the assessment orders which were impugned by the appellants in the appeals filed before the CIT under S. 249 of the IT Act, 1961. The same came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants then moved the IT Tribunal, Nagpur, under S. 253(1) of the IT Act, 1961, by filing appeals in the prescribed Form No. 36 as provided under r. 47(1) of the IT Rules, 1962 (for short the "said Rules"). Form No. 36 is required to be signed at three places by the appellants, one in front of the form below item No. 12 and at two places on the reverse side. One of the signatures on the reverse side of the form is to be affixed below the "verification". The appellants did not sign the "verification" statement but the appellants have signed the form at two other places as per the requirement. On the appeals being presented it was placed before the Tribunal after being registered. When the Tribunal took up the appeals for admission, it was dismissed by passing the impugned order dt. 16th May, 2000. The Tribunal observed that failure on part of the appellants in verifying the appeals is not a curable defect by placing reliance on various decisions. It was also held that neither the Tribunal nor the Registry of the Tribunal is in any way mandatorily obliged to look into and search for a defect and bring it to the notice of the appellants or his authorised representatives requesting them to rectify the defects and thereafter proceed to admit and entertain the appeals in accordance with the law. It is thus not the legal duty of the Tribunal or Registry of the Tribunal to point out flaws. Moreover, lack of verification and non -subscribing the signature in the statutory appeal forms, though mandated by law cannot constitute a defect or irregularity to be cured at the instance of this Tribunal or at the request of the Registry of the Tribunal. This omission goes to the root of the matter and affects the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus, the appeals were treated as invalid and came to be dismissed.

(3.) RULE 4A of the said rules vests certain powers and functions on the Registrar of the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the rule reads as under :