The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but while filling up form 35, the assessee inadvertently mentioned section 143(1) instead of section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the section under which the order appealed against was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was no provision to rectify a mistake in form 35. Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that rejecting the appeal taking a hyper technical view on technical defects would result in miscarriage of justice and multiplicity of litigation. Therefore the order was to be set aside and the assessee was to rectify the defect in form 35. The appeal is to be restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding it afresh on the merits, in accordance with law.(AY. 2015-16)
KEM Light Laboratories P. Ltd. v. ITO (2023)106 ITR 588 (SMC) (Mum) (Trib)
S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Mistakenly mentioning wrong section under which order appealed against passed-Dismissal of appeal on technical ground not justified-Assessee to be permitted to rectify mistake. [S. 143(1), 143(3), 254(1)]