JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short “the Tribunal”), arising out of the order passed in I.T.A. Nos. 609 to 613/ASR/84 in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 to 1981-82:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mistake occurred was not covered by the provisions of Section 292B of the Act and it could be held that the assessing authority had not filed the grounds of appeal as required under the provisions of Section 253 of the Act as well as under Form No. 36, column No. 14 ?
2. The facts as noticed in the statement of case are that the Revenue being aggrieved against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short “the CIT (Appeals)”) preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on a preliminary objection raised by the assessee that the Revenue had not furnished the grounds as required by column No. 14 of Form No. 36.
3. From the facts on record, we find that Form No. 36 was duly signed and verified by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while in column No. 14, it was mentioned that the relief being claimed in the appeal is as per the grounds of appeal. This was accompanied by photocopies of the grounds of appeal signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, which were further even signed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who had signed the statutory Form No. 36. With this undisputed factual position on record still the Tribunal taking an extremely hyper-technical view held the appeals to be not valid.
4. We find the reason given by the Tribunal to hold the appeals to be invalid is totally misconceived. Once it is admitted that the statutory form was signed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner where in the relief clause, it was stated that the same is as per the grounds of appeal, photocopies of grounds of appeal signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax were accompanied with the statutory form, which were further attested and signed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who had signed the statutory form. In this factual matrix, the view taken by the Tribunal is not legally sustainable whereby it was held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were invalid. Section 292B of the Act clearly provides that mere mistake, defect or omission in any proceeding shall not make any difference in case the same is, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. The substance and effect of the appeals filed by the Revenue was to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Revenue were required to be heard on the merits by the Tribunal instead of dismissing the same as not valid.
5. In this view of the matter, the question referred is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were valid.