ITAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Dismissal of Appeal Due to Clerical Error in Form 35

Introduction

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, has delivered a significant ruling emphasizing substance over form in tax appeals. In a matter involving St. Jude Medical India Private Limited, the Tribunal held that a mere clerical mistake in mentioning an incorrect section number in Form No. 35 cannot be grounds for dismissing an appeal without affording the assessee an opportunity to correct such error. The appellate authority was directed to examine the appeal on its substantive merits after permitting rectification of the procedural lapse.

Background Facts of the Case

St. Jude Medical India Private Limited, a company engaged in trading operations related to Cardiac Rhythm Management devices, Cardiac Surgery equipment, and Cardiology instruments, submitted its income return for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 30th November 2022. The declared total income amounted to Rs. 1,50,37,500/- computed under the regular provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The case was subsequently picked up for detailed scrutiny examination. Upon completion of the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 27th March 2024, the Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income at Rs. 3,72,42,130/-. This enhanced computation resulted from the disallowance of certain expenses that the assessee had claimed in the nature of provisions.

Appeal Before the First Appellate Authority

Challenging the assessment order dated 27th March 2024 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, while completing Form No. 35—the prescribed format for filing appeals—the assessee inadvertently mentioned in Column No. 2A that the appeal was directed against an order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act, when in reality, the impugned order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Dismissal by the Joint CIT(A)

The learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, disposed of the appeal through an order dated 5th September 2025. The appellate commissioner dismissed the appeal primarily on the technical ground that the assessee had filed the appeal against an order supposedly passed under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 27th March 2024, whereas the grounds of appeal clearly pertained to the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 27th March 2024.

The learned Joint CIT(A) concluded that since the appeal was filed against an order under Section 143(1), the appeal against the order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144B could not be entertained. Additionally, the appellate authority noted that he lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On this additional jurisdictional ground as well, the appeal was dismissed.

Proceedings Before ITAT Hyderabad

Aggrieved by the summary dismissal of the appeal without examination of substantive issues, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

Contentions by the Assessee

Shri Madhur Agrawal, learned Advocate representing the assessee, advanced the following submissions before the Tribunal:

  • The learned Joint CIT(A) committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal without issuing any notice to the assessee for rectifying the inadvertent mistakes in Form No. 35
  • The error in mentioning the incorrect section number was purely inadvertent and unintentional
  • As a matter of fact, no order existed under Section 143(1) of the Act for the date mentioned (27th March 2024), which the appellate authority should have verified
  • The assessee had filed only one appeal, which was specifically directed against the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144B of the Act, dated 27th March 2024
  • The error being merely technical or typographical in nature, the learned Joint CIT(A) ought to have examined the appeal on substantive grounds
  • Even if the appellate authority concluded that he lacked jurisdiction over appeals against orders under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144B, he should have transferred the appeal to the competent appellate authority having proper jurisdiction
  • The impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the file of the learned Joint CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits

Stand of the Revenue