Madras High Court
Shri.M.Mukesh Kumar vs The Income Tax Officer on 4 January, 2021
TCA.No.2 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.1.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.2 of 2021
Shri.M.Mukesh Kumar ...Appellant
Vs
The Income Tax Officer, Non
Corporate Ward 1(3), Coimbatore ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1971 against
the order dated 02.4.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench in I.T.A.No.2955/Chny/2018 for the
assessment year 2008-09.
For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted
by Ms.K.G.Usharani, JSC
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
This appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.2 of 2021
dated 02.4.2019 made in I.T.A.No.2955/Chny/2018 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal' for
brevity) for the assessment year 2008-09.
2. The appellant/assessee has filed this appeal by raising the
following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is
justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte
despite the sufficient reasons were shown by
the appellant as per the Proviso below Rule 24
of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules,
1963?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is
correct in dismissing the appeal as defective
even though there is no such defect as pointed
out by Registry and explained at the time of
hearing as printing error in incorporating the
appellant's name in the cause title of Form
No.36 filed before them ? And
3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is
correct in dismissing the appeal as defective
going solely by the cause title of Form No.36
while ignoring the verification portion of the
said Form No.36 thereby proving perversity in
the findings recorded in relation thereto?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.2 of 2021
3. We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior
Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent – Revenue.
4. It may not be necessary for us to go into the factual matrix,
as the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was dismissed
on the ground that the appeal was defective. From the defect memo,
which was notified to the assessee, we find that the initial of the
assessee was shown as 'I' instead of 'M' and owing to such a reason,
the appeal was dismissed as defective by the impugned order. In fact,
hearing of the appeal took place on 27.3.2019 and none appeared for
the assessee. It is relevant to note that in the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal, the initial of the assessee has been correctly shown as
'M'. Thus, the Tribunal itself rectified the mistake.
5. In any event, the mistake, being an insignificant or
inadvertent error, ought to have been permitted to be rectified instead
of dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was defective despite
Rule 12 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 provides
for such a procedure to be adhered to. Further, we are informed that
the defect memo issued by the Registry of the Tribunal along with
hearing notice and the papers were not returned earlier to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.2 of 2021
assessee or to their authorized representative.
6. It is high time that the Tribunal evolves a procedure, by
which, the defective papers are returned to the assessee or the
Revenue and reasonable time can be granted for rectifying the defects.
In fact, such a procedure is being followed in this Court, as a result of
which, many of the minor defects were rectified and cases are
numbered. Thus, considering the fact that the appeal was dismissed on
a technical ground, which, in our opinion, appears to be on a hyper
technical ground, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal filed by the assessee is
allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to
the file of the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits and in
accordance with law. We direct that the name of the assessee shall be
mentioned as 'M.Mukesh Kumar' in all the appeal papers and the
assessee/his authorized representative shall be permitted by the
Registry of the Tribunal to carry out the corrections and if necessary,
clean copies of the appeal papers shall be made available. The
substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs.
RS 04.1.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.2 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
RS
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench.
2.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Coimbatore
TCA.No.2 of 2021
04.1.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
