Cairn Energy India West B.V., Surat v. The ADIT.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 86/AHD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8620514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCC5894J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 86/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Cairn Energy India West B.V., Surat
Respondent The ADIT.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 26-03-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 11-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 198/03/2010 DRAFTED ON:19/0 3/2010 APPEAL(S) / CO(S) BY SL. NO(S). ITA NO(S) / CO NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPOND ENT 1. 86/AHD/2010 2006-07 M/S.CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV C/O.SNK & CO. 31-A ADARSH SOCIETY OPP.SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIS HIGH SCHOOL SURAT PAN : AABCC 5894 J ADIT AHMEDABAD 2. 457/AHD/2010 2005-06 -DO- ADIT AHMEDABAD 3. 459/AHD/2010 2006-07 M/S.CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV C/O.SNK & CO. SURAT PAN : AABCC 5893 K ADIT AHMEDABAD ASSESSEE(S) BY : S/SHRI C.S. AGARWAL & PAWAN KUMAR ARS REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGDEO CIT-DR O R D E R PER SHRI T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS PERTAIN TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSES SEES ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 27/11/2009 & 14/12/2009 OF THE LE ARNED CIT(APPEALS)- GANDHINAGAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 . (IN OTHER WORDS TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE NAMELY - M/S.CAIR N ENERGY INDIA WEST BV SURAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2005-06 AN D ONE APPEAL IN ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 2 - RESPECT OF ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S. CAIRN ENERGY CAM BAY BV SURAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07). 2. THE FACTS OF ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTIC AL. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED BY WAY OF SPECIAL LEAVE AP PEAL UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA THE VIRUS OF CLAUS E 15 OF THE NOTES ON CLAUSES OF THE FINANCE BILL-2008 WHERE AN ATTEMPT W AS MADE TO CURTAIL AND RESTRICT MEANING OF MINERAL OIL (SO AS TO EX CLUDE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS AS ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 80IB(9) OF TH E ACT) BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY WA Y OF AMENDMENT CIRCULAR ISSUED TO THE CBDT DATED 27/03/2009 THE H ON'BLE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NOT TO SERVE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGWITH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IF THE ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN FRAMED. HOWEVER AS A RESULT OF MODI FIED ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DATED 16/06/200 9 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGWITH DEMAND NOTICE WERE SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE ON 20/06/2009 IN THE CASE OF CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV SURAT AND DATED 22/06/2009 IN THE CASE OF CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV S URAT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEES FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON 30/06/2009. 3. IN THE CASE OF CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV (ITA NO.86/AHD/2010) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THA T MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SIGNED IN INK AND THE DATE IS MISSING IN FORM NO.35. THEREFORE HE ISSUED A NOTICE/LETTER D ATED 9/11/2009 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS NON-EST IS AN INVALID APPEAL . HOWEVER HE DIRECTED IN THE ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 3 - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE MAY FILE ITS REPLY OR APPEAR IN PERSON ON 26/11/2009. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO ASSESSEE FILE D A REPLY DATED 26/11/2009 WHEREIN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT APPEAL FIL ED CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INVALID MERELY BECAUSE IT HAD SCANNED-SIGNATURE AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT IN INK. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERE OMISSION OF THE DATE OF VERIFICATION IS NOT VALID GROUND TO TREAT THE SAID APPEAL NON EST AS SAID DATE CAN BE TREATED TO BE THE DATE OF FILING THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THEREAFTER ASSESSEE FIL ED ANOTHER DETAILED SUBMISSIONS DATED 04/12/2009 COPY OF WHICH HAS BEE N PLACED AT PAGE NOS.29 TO 34 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. 3.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID REPLY OF THE A SSESSEE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/11/2009 HAS HELD THAT APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE IS NON EST AND AS SUCH DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY IN LIMINE. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAS FILED SEPARATE AMENDED MEMO OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IN THIS REGARD THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS HELD THAT THE SAME WILL BE CONSI DERED SEPARATELY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) T HE ASSESSEE NAMELY CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. THE GROUND NOS.1 TO 5 ARE AGAINST DISPOSAL OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL NON EST IS AN INVALID AND AS SUCH DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY IN LIMINE. THESE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 4 - 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) DATE 27. 11.2009 PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ('ACT') AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. AO D ATED 30.12.2008 IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30/6/2 009 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SERVED ON THE ASS ESSEE ON 20/6/2009 IN PURSUANCE OF THE MODIFIED INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT CONSISTING OF A SCANNED COPY OF SIGNED MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 REQUISITE FEE NOTICE OF DEMAND COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A VALID APPEAL AND ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN TREATIN G THE SAME AS AN INVALID APPEAL THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS NON-EST ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SIGNED IN INK AND THE DATE WAS MISSING IN THE VERIF ICATION PART OF FORM NO. 35 AND DISMISSING THE SAME INLIMINE. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE DEFECT IN FORM 35 IF ANY IS CURABLE AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH APPEAL MEMO IN FORM 35 ON 26/11/09 DULY COMPLYING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9.11.2009 WITH SIGNATURE OF THE AUTHORIZED PERSON IN INK AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE TREAT ED AS INVALID IN LAW. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AT BEST FILING OF REVISED FORM 35 FILED ON 26/ 11/09 AFTER REMOVING THE DEFECTS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AFORESAID DELAY DESER VES TO BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF ON MERITS. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED AND HENCE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) IN DISMISSING THE APPE AL AS INVALID WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS IS PAT ENTLY WRONG AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THE ID. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED PB CONTAINING 433 PAG ES IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY CIT (A ) IN REJECTING THE APPEAL IN-LIMINE. 5. IN RESPECT OF OTHER APPEALS THE FACTS ARE IDENT ICAL AS STATED ABOVE AND ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN OTHER TWO APPEALS I .E. ITA NOS.457/AHD/2010 & 459/AHD/2010 THE ASSESSEE(S) HA D ITSELF AMENDED THE MEMO OF APPEAL(S) BY PUTTING SIGNATURES IN INK AS AGAINST THE SCANNED ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 5 - SIGNATURE AND ALSO REMOVED THE DEFECT OF DATE OF VE RIFICATION AND PLACE. THE COPY OF THE SAID SUBMISSIONS WERE PLACED AT PAG E NOS.12 TO 24 & 12 TO 23 RESPECTIVELY IN THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE A SSESSEE(S) IN ITA NOS.457/AHD/2010 & 459/AHD/2010 ALONGWITH AMENDED M EMO OF APPEAL(S). FOR THESE TWO APPEALS WERE ALSO TREATE D BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS NON EST IS AN INVLAID AND AS SUCH DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY IN LIMINE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A GAINST DISMISSAL OF APPEAL I.E AGAINST NON EST IS AN INVALID AND AS SUCH DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY IN LIMINE ARE AS UNDER:- IN ITA NO.457/AHD/2010 - CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST B V SURAT 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -GANDHI NAGAR ('LD. CIT (A)') DATED 14.12 .2009 PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ('ACT') DATE D 30.12.2008 BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATI ONAL TAXATION) AHMEDABAD (''LD. AO') IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 30.06 .2009 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 22/6/2009 IN PURSUANCE OF THE MODIFIED INTERIM ORDE R PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT CONSISTING OF A SCAN NED COPY OF SIGNED MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 REQUISITE FEE NOTIC E OF DEMAND COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A VALID APPEAL AND LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY TREATING IT AS A N INVALID AND NON-EST APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SIGNED IN INK AND THE DATE WAS MISSING IN THE VERIFICATION PART OF FORM NO. 35. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED AND HENCE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) IN DISMISSING THE APPE AL AS INVALID WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS IS PAT ENTLY WRONG AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 6 - 2.2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE DEF ECT IN FORM 35 IF ANY IS CURABLE AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED FRESH APPEAL MEMO IN FORM 35 ON 04.12.200 9 SUO MOTO WITH SIGNATURE OF THE AUTHORIZED PERSON IN INK AND DATE THEREFORE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID IN LAW. 2.3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE CON TENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT AT BEST FILING OF REVISED FORM 35 FILED ON 04. 12.2009 AFTER REMOVING THE DEFECTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS VALID APP EAL AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AFORESAID DELAY IF AN Y DESERVES TO BE CONDONED AND THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HEAR AND DISPO SE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON VALIDITY OF ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) OF DISMISSING AN APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMINE THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 97 21 44 130/- AS AGAINST R ETURNED INCOME AT NIL COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW. IN ITA NO.459/AHD/2010 - CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV SURAT 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -GANDHI NAGAR ('LD. C1T (A)') DATED 14.12 .2009 PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ('ACT') DATE D 30.12.2008 BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATI ONAL TAXATION) AHMEDABAD ('LD. AO') IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT O N 30.06.2009 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 22/6/2009 IN PURSUANCE OF THE MODIFIED INTERIM ORDE R PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT CONSISTING OF A SCAN NED COPY OF SIGNED MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 REQUISITE FEE NOTIC E OF DEMAND COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A VALID APPEAL AND LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY TREATING IT AS A N INVALID AND NON-EST APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SIGNED IN INK AND THE DATE WAS MISSING IN THE VERIFICATION PART OF FORM NO. 35. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED AND HENCE ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 7 - THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) IN DISMISSING THE APPE AL AS INVALID WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS IS PAT ENTLY WRONG AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2.2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE DEFECT IN FORM 35 IF ANY IS CURABLE AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED FRESH APPEAL MEMO IN FORM 35 ON 04.12.2009 SUO MOTO WITH SIGNATURE OF THE AUTHORIZED PERSON IN INK AND DATE THEREFORE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID IN LAW. 2.3 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT AT BEST FILING OF REVISED FORM 35 FI LED ON 04.12.2009 AFTER REMOVING THE DEFECTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS VALID APPEAL AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AFORESA ID DELAY IF ANY DESERVES TO BE CONDONED AND THE LD. C1T(A) OUGHT TO HEAR AND DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE SHRI C.S. AGRAWAL LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT BE HYPER TECHNICAL IN PROCEDURAL MATTER AND THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED THE DATE IN M EMO OF APPEAL AND APPEAL WAS FILED WITH SCANNED-SIGNATURES OF AUTHORI ZED SIGNATORY CAN ONLY BE CALLED TO BE IRREGULARITY/DEFICIENCY AND WA S CURABLE ONE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THERE MAY BE A MISTAKE OR DEFECT BUT ONCE THAT DEFECT IS CURED IT NO LONGER PERSIST S AND AFTER CURING OF A DEFECT THE SAME CAN DEFINITELY BE ACTED UPON. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF WIPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY L TD. VS. DY. CIT 88 TTJ 778 (BANG.). 6.1. THE DEFECT IN FILING THE APPEAL IS A CURABLE D EFECT AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE I.T. ACT 196 1 NO PROCEEDINGS SHALL ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 8 - BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MIS TAKE DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE SAME IF SUCH PROCEEDING IS IN SUBS TANCE AND IN EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURP OSE OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS HYPER T ECHNICAL IN PROCEDURAL MATTER WHEN HE HAD DEALT WITH SIGNATURE WAS NOT IN INK. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.SESHAMMA L VS. ITO & ANOTHER REPORTED IN 237 ITR 185 AT PAGE 137 HAS HEL D AS UNDER:- THIS IS HARDLY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE IS EX PECTED TO DEAL WITH THE CITIZENS WHO IN THEIR ANXIETY TO COMPLY W ITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT PAY MONIES AS ADVANCE TAX T O THE STATE EVENTHOUGH THE MONIES WERE NOT ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY THEM AND THEREAFTER SEEK REFUND OF THE MONIES SO PAID BY MISTAKE AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT ARE DROPPED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. THE STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PLEAD THE HYPER-TECHNICAL PLEA OF LIMITATION IN SUCH A SITUATION TO AVOID RET URN OF THE AMOUNTS. SECTION 119 OF THE ACT VESTS AMPLE POWER IN THE BOARD TO RENDER JUSTICE IN SUCH A SITUATION. THE BOARD HAS ACTED ARBITRARILY IN REJECTING THE PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR REFUND. 6.2 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E APPROACH OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS IN ANY CASE HPER-TECHNICAL AND THUS HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF DISMISSING AN APPEAL IN LIMINE IS AN ORDER U/S.250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 AND IS APPEALABLE AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MELA RAM & SONS VS . CIT (1956) ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 9 - 29 ITR 607 (S.C.). BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS FILED THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO.35 PROVIDED UNDER RULE 45 O F THE IT RULES 1962. THE RULES-45 OF THE IT RULES 1962 READS A S UNDER:- (1) AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF (APPEALS) SH ALL BE MADE IN FROM NO.35. (2) THE FORM OF APPEAL PRESCRIBED BY SUB-RULE(1) THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE FORM OF VERIFICATION APPE NDED THERETO RELATING TO AN ASSESSEE SHALL BE SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN TH E RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 140 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961 AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SIGNED IN INK AND THUS APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM WAS NON EST IS AN INVALID AND AS SUCH DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY IN LIMINE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT SUB RULE-(2) OF IT RULES 45 DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT A PPEAL TO BE SIGNED IN INK. IT ONLY PROVIDES THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AND THE FORM OF VERIFICATION APPENDED THERETO RELATING TO ASSESSEE SHALL BE SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE PERSON.. . 9. WITH REGARD TO OBJECTION OF LD.CIT(A) THAT APPEA L FILED BEFORE HIM WAS NOT IN INK THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT IT DOES NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OR THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM H AD BEEN UNSIGNED. THEREFORE THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER WHEN THE S TATUTE REQUIRES ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 10 - THAT THE DOCUMENT TO BE SIGNED DOE IT ALSO MEAN TH AT THE DOCUMENT BE TO BE SIGNED BY INK . HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. A DOCUMENT CAN BE SIGNED BY ANY MODE OR MANNER BUT IS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE SIGNED. THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT DOCUMENTS WERE SIGNED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY WHICH DEFINES SIGN/SIGNATURE AS UNDER:- SPEAKING GENERALLY A SIGNATURE IS THE WRITING OR OTHERWISE AFFIXING A PERSONS NAME OR A MARK TO REPRESENT H IS NAME BY HIMSELF OR BY HIS AUTHORITY . {R.V. JUSTICE L.R. 80.B. 305} WITH THE INTENTION OF AUTHENTICATING A DOCUMENT AS BEING THAT OF OR AS BINDING ON THE PERSON WHOSE NAME OR MARK IS SO WRITTEN OR AFFIXED. IN MORTON V. COPELAND (16 CB 535) MAULE J. SAID SIGNATURE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WRITING A PE RSONS CHRISTIAN AND SURNAME BUT ANY MARK WHICH IDENTIFIE S IT AS PROVED OR ADMITTED TO BE GENUINE AND BE THE ACCUST OMED MODE OF SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY. 9.1. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT J UDICIALLY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SIGNATURE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WRITING A PERSONS CHRISTIAN AND SURNAME BUT ANY MARK WHICH IDENTIFIES IT AS PROVED OR ADMITTED TO BE GENUINE AND BE THE ACCUST OMED MODE OF SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY AND IS NOT THE SAME AS TO SU BSCRIBE . ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 11 - 9.2. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPRESSION SIGNATURE DEFINED J UDICIALLY AS UNDER: LAW DICTIONARY A SIGN OR MARK IMPRESSED UPON ANYTHING; A STAMP A MARK; THE NAME OF A PERSON WRITTEN AND SUBSCRIBED BY HIMSELF. THE VERB 'TO SIGN' IS DEFINED 'TO AFFIX A SIGNATURE TO: TO RATIFY BY HAND OF SEAL; TO SUBSCRIBE IN ONE'S OWN HANDWRITING.' A 'SIGNATUR E' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS 'A SIGN STAMP OR MARK IMPRESSED AS BY A SEAL ESPEC IALLY THE NAME OF ANY PERSON WRITTEN WITH HIS OWN HAND EMPLOYED TO SIGNI FY THAT THE WRITING WHICH PRECEDES ACCORDS WITH HIS WISHES OR INTENTION; A SI GN MANUAL'. BY SIGNATURE IS UNDERSTOOD THE ACT OF PUTTING DOWN A MAN'S NAME AT THE END OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ATTEST ITS VALIDITY. THE NAME THUS WRIT IS ALSO CALLED A SIGNATURE. SIGNATURE IS THE NAME OF PERSON WRITTEN ON A DOCUME NT TO SIGNIFY THAT THE WRITING ACCORDS WITH HIS WISHES OR INTENTIONS. THIS IS WHAT IS ORDINARILY MEANT BY SPEAKING OF A PERSON'S 'SIGNATURE' BUT THE LAW DOES NOT ALWAYS INSIST UPON THE NAME OF THE PERSON BEING WRITTEN; INITIALS OR A MARK INTENDED TO REPRESENT A PERSON'S NAME HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE A SUFFICIENT ' SIGNATURE' BY HIM. FURTHER UNLESS A STATUTE MAKES A PERSONAL SIGNATUR E INDISPENSABLE SIGNATURE BY A DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT IS SUFFICIENT SIGNATURE BY A DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT IS SUFFICIENT. [R.V. KENT JUSTICES (1873) LR 8 QB 305] [33 1C 861: 4 CU 41] 10. TO SUM UP THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN APPEAL WAS SIGNED AND WHICH BORNE SCANNED-SIGNATURE (AND HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE) AND WHO HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN IT C ANNOT LEGALLY BE HELD THAT THE APPEAL FILED WAS NOT VALID ONLY BEC AUSE IT WAS NOT SIGNED IN INK. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES THE SIGNATURE TO BE MADE IN INK AND WHICH SIGNED CAN BE BY ANY MARK OF IDENTIFICATION. THEREFORE ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 12 - CERTAINLY IT IS NOT COMPREHENSIBLE TO CONTENT THAT THE APPEAL WHICH BORNE THE SIGN AND WERE SCANNED-SIGNATURE WAS NOT S IGNED APPEAL. THE SCANNED-SIGNATURE IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IT IS STATED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCEMENT IN THE TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AN APPEAL FILED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNSIGNED APPEAL. IN FACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCEMENT OF THE TECHNOLOGIES THERE IS STATUTORI LY PROVIDING AN E-FILING OF A RETURN OF INCOME WHICH ALSO BEAR SCA NNED OR DIGITAL SIGNATURES. 11. ALTERNATIVELY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEALS FRESH APPEALS MEMO WERE FILED AND THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN TREATING THOSE APP EALS MEMO TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY ON MERITS. THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE ORIGI NAL NOTICE OF DEMAND. THE FRESH APPEALS MEMO SUBMITTED WERE WITH OUT ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND (BECAUSE THESE WERE SUBMITTED ALON GWITH ORIGINAL APPEALS MEMO). BY FILING THE FRESH APPEALS MEMO O F ALL THE THREE APPEALS BOTH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECTIFIED THE DEFEC T(S). THEREFORE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CLEARLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THOSE SHALL FORM SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH S EPARATELY ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED FRESH APPEALS MEMO JUST TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT(S). THEREFORE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BE DIREC TED - ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 13 - (I) TO TREAT THE DEFECT REMOVED AFTER CONSIDERING THE FRESH APPEAL MEMO FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OR (II) IN CASE HE THINK THAT THOSE ARE SEPARATE APP EAL IN THAT EVENT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BE DIRECTED TO COND ONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DECIDE ALL THE T HREE APPEALS ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI JAGDEO-CIT LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE APPEARED VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER(S) OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INCOME TAX RUL ES 1962 NO AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE WHICH PERMITS AN ASSESSEE T O FILE APPEAL MEMO WITH SCANNED-SIGNATURE THEREFORE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) RIGHTLY HELD THAT APPEALS ARE NON EST AND ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES GONE THROUGH T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIA L PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL THE APPEALS W ERE SIGNED FILED IN TIME AND WERE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. THESE FORMS WERE (THOUGH BORNE SCANNED-SIGNATURES) BY THE PERSON WHO IS DULY AUTHORIZED. ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 14 - THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED THE DATE IN APPEAL(S) MEMO AND APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE SCANNED-SIGNATUR ES THE APPEALS CAN ONLY SAID TO BE IRREGULARITY/DEFECTIVE AND SAID IRREGULAR/DEFECTS WAS CURABLE ONE. IT IS WELL SETT LED 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 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANNALAL BRIJL AL 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 O F ALL THE THREE CASES IN OUR OPINION THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E DECIDED ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE(S) ON MERITS INSTEAD OF BECOMING HYPER TECHNICAL IN PROCEDURAL MATTER. WE THEREFORE HEL D THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH APPEAL(S) MEMO WHICH BORNE THE SIGN ATURE IN INK DATE AND PLACE ETC THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE TREATED THAT DEFECTS REMOVED. AGAINST ONE ORDER ONLY ONE APPEAL CAN B E FILED ALONGWITH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND. WE ARE THEREFORE AFRAI D THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED ALL THE FRESH THREE APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENC LOSED THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND. AS A MATTER OF FACT WITH THE F RESH MEMO ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND CANNOT BE FURNISHED BECAUSE THESE WERE ALREADY FURNISHED ALONGWITH ORIGINAL APPEAL(S) MEMO. THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND IN OUR OPINION ARE VALID SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF DEFECT IF ANY WHICH THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) MAY POINT OUT. ONCE THE DEFECT IS REMOVED THE LE ARNED CIT(APPEALS) CLEARLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL(S) NON EST/INVALID AND DISMISSING ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 15 - IN LIMINE. AGAINST ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE CAN FILE ON LY ONE APPEAL. IN THESE CASES BOTH THE ASSESSEES DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEALS FILED FRESH MEMO OF APPEALS. IN OUR OP INION THE SOLE PURPOSE OF FILING FRESH MEMOS WAS TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS. T HEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CLEARLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT FRESH ME MO RECTIFYING THE DEFECTS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES SHALL FORM SEP ARATE PROCEEDINGS AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY ON MERITS. WE THER EFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER(S) OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND D IRECT HIM TO TREAT THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE REMOVED THE DEFECTS BY FILING FRESH MEMOS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO A DMIT AND DECIDE ALL THE APPEALS ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 13.1. OUR DECISION IS ALSO FORTIFIED WITH THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS:- (I) IN THE CASE OF JAGAT DHISH BHARGAVA VS. JAWAHAR LAL BHARGAVA AIR 1961 SC 832 837. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD NO HARD AND FAST RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY CAN BE LAID DOWN FOR DEALING WITH APPEALS DEFECTIVELY FILED. APPROPRIATE ORDERS WIL L HAVE TO BE PASSED HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EAC H CASE BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP TO TAKE IN CASES OF DEF ECTIVE PRESENTATION OF APPEALS IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE CARE FULLY SCRUTINIZED AT THE INITIAL STAGE SOON AFTER THEY AR E FILED AND THE APPELLANT REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS. ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 16 - (II) IN THE CASE OF BHARAT INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1995) 98 STC 417 424 425 (BOM). THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION APPLIES ONLY TO THE FILING OF APPEAL. I F THE APPEAL IS FILED WITHIN TIME OMISSION TO FURNISH ANY OF TH E PARTICULARS OR INFORMATIONS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULE S OR UNDER THE FORM MAY BE RECTIFIED BY THE APPELLANT AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER. IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FINDS OUT A NY SUCH OMISSION IT IS INCUMBENT ON ITS PART TO GIVE AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO AMEND THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL TO SUPPLY THE OMISSION OR TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS. IT IS ONLY ON THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO DO SO DESPITE OPPO RTUNITY BEING GIVEN FOR THAT PURPOSE THAT THE APPELLATE AU THORITY GETS THE POWER TO REJECT THE APPEAL SUMMARILY. RE JECTION OF APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (III) IN THE CASE OF GOURI KUMARI DEVI VS. CIT BIHAR & ORISSA (1959) 37 ITR 220. THE HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT HELD FAILURE OF AN ASSESSEE PERSONALLY TO SIGN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEA L PRESENTED TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS NOT AN ILLEG ALITY BUT ONLY A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED BY AN AMENDMENT THE AMENDMENT TAKING EFFECT FROM THE DAT E THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY FILED. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THE AS SESSES TO AMEND THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL BY AFFIXING HIS SIGNATURE THERETO. WHERE A MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SIGNED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED IN TIME- BU T WHEN AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAD EXPIRED THE CASE CAM UP FOR HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE PRESENTED A PETITION F OR ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 17 - AMENDING THE MEMORANDUM : : APPEAL AND- FILED A FRESH MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SIGNED BY HER : HELD THAT THERE WAS A PROPER APPEAL PRESENTED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS BARRED BY T IME. (IV) IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRAKUMAR MANEKLAL SHETH (HUF) VS. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 715 (GUJ). IN THIS JUDGEMENT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD (AT PAGE NO.417) T HE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD EXERCISED HIS DISCRETIONARY JURIS DICTION AND HAD CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS UNDER SECTION 249(3) OF THE INCOME-ACT 1961. FOR CONDONING THE DELAY HE HAD CONSIDERED THE FACTS. BY ADMITTING THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS THE REVENUE WAS NOT LIK ELY TO SUFFER ANY LOSS OR PREJUDICE. THE DISCRETIONARY POW ER EXERCISED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN CURING THE SO-CALLED IRREGULARITY WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNATURE ON THE AP PEAL MEMO DID NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIB UNAL PARTICULARLY WHEN THE FRESH APPEAL MEMO DULY SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE IT. 14. BEFORE PARTING WITH WE MAY ADD THAT AT THE TIM E OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SIN CE IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT HAVE ANY DEFECT SO THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE ACTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY WAS ONLY OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL MAY DEC IDE THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN SUPPORT OF THIS RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJPAL & CO. ITA NOS.86 457 & 459/AHD/ 2010 CAIRN ENERGY INDIA WEST BV & CAIRN ENERGY CAMBAY BV VS. ADIT ASST.YEARS - 2006-07 2005-06 & 2006-07 (RESPECTIV ELY) - 18 - VS. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 832 (DELHI). IN RESPECT O F ABOVE ALL THE THREE APPEALS SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED WE HAVE DIREC TED THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO ADMIT ALL THE THREE APPEALS AND DEC IDE VARIOUS GROUNDS ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO DECIDE THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFOR E US. 15. IN THE RESULT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26/03/2010. SD/- SD/- ( N.S. SAINI ) ( T.K.SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/ 03 /2010 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD