N.D. RAGHAVAN, VICE PRESIDENT: This is appeal of assessee challenging order dt. 8th Sept., 2004 of CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad, as erroneous. Facts of case are briefly these: On merits, assessee appealed before CIT(A) that Asstt. CIT ought to have established escapement of income before resorting to reassessment proceedings under s. 147 r/w s. 148 o f Act, besides failing in all respects to prove that sale agreement in question partakes character of contract of nature contemplated under s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act, before invoking definition of "transfer" in terms of s. 2(47)(v) of IT Act, 1961. While so, CIT(A) dismissed assessee s appeal in limine as not maintainable, objecting and observing that grounds of appeal raised being very lengthy and argumentative, as well as appeal-Form No. 35 not having been signed and verified by managing director or even director, are opposed to provisions of relevant rules and sections of income-tax legislation and that, therefore, merits are not required to be discussed. Hence instant second appeal by assessee before us. learned counsel for assessee submitted that: CIT(A) ought to have given specific opportunity in writing to assessee to rectify defect in Form No. 35, which was signed by authorised Senior Vice President (Finance) of company as directors of company were out of country. He failed to note that non-signing of memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 by directors of company who were out of country was "not invalid" within meaning of s. 292B of IT Act, 1961. Hence, he ought to have admitted appeal and decided issue o n merits, by holding that assessee was not liable for short-term capital gains, as there was no transfer of immovable property within meaning of s. 2(47) of Act. Without prejudice to grounds aforesaid, he ought to have set off loss of Rs. 11,61,046 against short-term capital gains of Rs. 35,12,443. Hence, order of CIT(A) holding that appeal is not maintainable is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law. It may be seen that Vice President (Finance) of assessee company h s signed appeal papers instead of director or managing director. company has two directors, and there is no managing director. Both directors were out of India. Hence, Vice President had only to sign, being authorised by board. Copy of such minutes has been filed before CIT(A) vide para 4 of CIT(A) s order impugned herein. Provisions of s. 292B may also be seen, marginal note of which is "Return of income, etc. not to be invalid on certain grounds". If at all there is procedural irregularity, it could be cured. Therefore, giving opportunity to cure such defects does not cause any prejudice to Revenue, but certainly to assessee. Reliance is placed on decisions following: (a) Rajendrakumar Maneklal Sheth (HUF) vs. CIT (1995) 123 CTR (Guj) 468: (1995) 213 ITR 715 (Guj); (b) CIT vs. Masoneilan (India) Ltd. (1999) 157 CTR (Ker) 482: (2000) 242 ITR 569 (Ker); (c) Vanaja Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 166 CTR (Ker) 177: (2001) 249 ITR 374 (Ker); (d) M.R. Pratap vs. V.M. Muthukrishnan, ITO (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 203: (1992) 196 ITR 1 (SC). On other hand, learned representative for Revenue countered, t o say in brief, by defending order impugned for being sustained, besides submitting that case laws relied upon by assessee are all distinguishable and referring to following: (a) Sec. 140 Return by whom to be signed; (b) Sec. 292B Return of income, etc. not to be invalid on certain grounds. According to Revenue, this provision relied upon by assessee is not applicable, being irrelevant; (c) Rule 45(2) of IT Rules Form of appeal to CIT(A); (d) Bharatkumar Sakhsaria vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 77 TTJ (Mumbai) 769: (2002) 82 ITD 512 (Mumbai); (e) Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 182 CTR (SC) 107: (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC); (f) Vijay Prakash D. Mehta vs. Collector of Customs (1989) 175 ITR 540 (SC); (g) Page 3 of Revenue s paper book Extract of minutes of meeting of board of directors of assessee company, authorizing Senior Vice President to represent assessee company; (h) Para 4 of CIT(A) s order. Rival submissions heard and relevant orders read. After doing so, we are of considered opinion that defence of Revenue cannot be ruled out altogether, as in our view, there is substance in it as compared to stand of assessee even though latter could not be in some aspects ruled out altogether, for reasons following. assessment year involved is 1998-99, and date of assessment order is 9th March, 2004, passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of Act. Notice under s. 148 was issued, and assessee furnished its return of income on 30th April, 2003. Notices under s. 143(2) and s.142(1) were also issued on 10th July, 2003, besides show-cause notice issued on same day i.e. 10th July, 2003 to assessee, to explain certain factors. In response thereto, assessee s representative and its manager attended hearings from time to time. Assessee has also given its explanation by its letter dt. 29th July, 2003. For reasons detailed therein, assessment order determined total income at Rs. 35,12,443, besides initiating penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of Act, separately. On appeal before CIT(A), and after dates of hearing on 26th May, 2004 and 3rd June, 2004, by his order dt. 8th Sept., 2004 appeal of assessee was rejected as not maintainable, and thus, grounds of appeal raised were opined as not required to be discussed by CIT(A). Against it, assessee has come in second appeal before Tribunal, presenting it with Registry on 22nd Dec., 2004. stay petition was also filed by assessee on 25th Dec., 2004, but with many defects therein. same having been pointed out by Registry in its defects memo and after rectification thereof by assessee, stay petition was heard by Tribunal on 28th Jan., 2005, resulting in rejection thereof but granting ultimate main plea of early hearing on 17th March, 2005. appeals were heard on 24th March, 2005, 25th April, 2005 and 10th June, 2005. Both parties were given opportunity of being heard even over order dt. 18th March, 1997 in RA Nos. 180 and 181/Mad/1996 (in ITA Nos. 1226 and 1227/Mad/1994) in case of CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., and also judgment dt. 28th Dec., 1998 by Hon ble Madras High Court in Writ Petn. Nos. 4738 and 4739 of 1998, though supporting Tribunal s Madras Bench order cited supra, but ultimately giving last opportunity to assessee by remitting matter to Tribunal, at same time, awarding costs on part of Department and passing strictures against Department. Such opportunity was given by this Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal by refixing appeal, and also furnishing copies of orders of both Madras Bench of Tribunal as well as Hon ble Madras High Court referred to above, to both parties, and hearing them over same. After doing so and on careful consideration of issue involved more particularly when CIT(A) s order impugned herein, has decided issue on preliminary point of maintainability itself and not on merits, as well as in light of case laws referred to above, we proceed to give our verdict as below. At outset, we may observe that in para 2 of order impugned, CIT(A) has stated that grounds of appeal raised before him were very lengthy, argumentative and were against Rules. Neither assessee has refuted this finding before us, nor do we find any flaw in such finding of CIT(A), for obvious reason that r. 8 of ITAT Rules also states that every memorandum of appeal shall set forth concisely under distinct heads, grounds of appeal, without any argument or narration and such grounds shall also be numbered consecutively. assessee has also filed appeal before CIT(A) with delay of 1 7 days, beyond period of limitation within which he should have filed appeal. In para 3 of order impugned, CIT(A) mentions that affidavit appeal. In para 3 of order impugned, CIT(A) mentions that affidavit filed states that delay had occurred due to negligence on part of chartered accountant, and due to inadvertence. said affidavit, admittedly, was signed and filed by Senior Vice President (Finance) of assessee- company, and not by managing director or any of directors of assessee company, as it ought to be. Furthermore, at para 4 of CIT(A) s order, CIT(A) has given finding that Form No. 35 has also been signed by Senior Vice President (Finance) and not by managing director or any other director. This fact has been brought to notice of assessee s counsel during course of hearing by CIT(A) on 26th May, 2004 (which it is pointed out that mistakenly it has been mentioned as 25th June, 2004). assessee filed letter on 3rd June, 2004 before CIT(A) contending that assessee company s board had only two directors and that both directors were not in country for past three months. It is also mentioned by assessee before CIT(A) that board passed resolution empowering Senior Vice President (Finance) to handle all matters both statutory and otherwise. extract of minutes of board meeting dt. 3rd July, 2004 was also annexed to said letter of assessee dt. 3rd June, 2004. Consequently, CIT(A) has given his clear-cut finding that assessee did not rectify defect in Form No. 35 by sending form duly signed by managing director or director of company when there is no managing director. CIT(A) has also supported his verdict by referring to provisions of r. 45(2) of IT Rules, extracting same at para 5 of his order. CIT(A) has ultimately concluded that it is apparent and clear that while filing appeal, Form No. 35 was not signed and verified by managing director or any director of assessee company, and that, therefore, contention that Senior Vice President (Finance) was authorised to file appeal in case of assessee has no merit inasmuch as under provisions of cl. (c) of s. 140 of Act, only managing director of resident company is authorised to sign and verify Form No. 35, and director is authorised to sign and verify Form No. 35 only when there is no managing director or for any other unavoidable reason, he is unable to sign. From perusal of board s resolution, extract of which is furnished at p. 3 of assessee s paper book, CIT(A) has clearly noted that said Senior Vice President (Finance) is only authorised to appear and act on behalf of and represent company in all matters before Central Government, State Government and similar authorities, including public bodies, public officers, local self-Government bodies, and all Government officers and to sign and execute all applications, returns, objections, documents, agreements and papers that may be required for and on behalf of company in or in relation to any matter in which it is interested or may be concerned in any way. CIT(A) found that said authorization of board s resolution does not empower filing of appeal under IT Act. Besides taking into account mandate and rigours of provisions of IT Act, as discussed above by CIT(A), he confirmed his finding that even such authorization would not entitle person other than managing director or director to file appeal under provisions of Act. On these facts and circumstances, appeal filed in Form No. 35 not having been signed and verified by managing director or director, CIT(A) dismissed assessee s appeal in limine not being maintainable. For sake of ready reference, we may extract below r. 45, under head Appeals in Part-X of IT Rules, 1962, with marginal note Form of appeal to CIT(A) , which runs as below: "45..... (1) appeal to CIT(A) shall be made in Form No. 35. (2) form of appeal prescribed by sub-r. (1), grounds of appeal and form of verification appended thereto relating to assessee shall be signed and verified by person who is authorised to sign return of income under s. 140 of IT Act, 1961 as applicable to assessee." Similarly, for sake of ready reference, s. 140 of IT Act, 1961, with marginal note Return by whom to be signed is also extracted as below: "Sec. 140.....The return under s. 139 shall be signed and verified (a)..... (a)..... (b)..... (c) in case of company, by managing director thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing director is not able to sign and verify return or where there is no managing director, by any director thereof: Provided that where company is not resident in India, return may be signed and verified by person who holds valid power of attorney from such company to do so, which shall be attached to return: Provided further that (a) where company is being wound-up, whether under orders of Court or otherwise, or where any person has been appointed as receiver of n y assets of company, return shall be signed and verified by liquidator referred to in sub-s. (1) of s. 178; (b) where management of company has been taken over by Central Government or any State Government under any law, return of company shall be signed and verified by principal officer thereof." What is relied upon by assessee is provisions of s. 292B of Act with marginal note Return of income, etc. not to be invalid on certain grounds . This provision, as submitted by Revenue, is not relevant and not directly applicable to instant case for reason that filing of return is in discharge of one s statutory obligation being mandatory and therefore, saved by above provision, unlike institution of appeal being discretionary. Further, what is crucial is as to whether or not appeal is admissible, if other provisions of Act and Rules quoted above are not complied with by assessee, and indeed, as CIT(A) has found out in instant case, it has not been complied with by assessee, who remained adamant in spite of opportunities being given by CIT(A). No doubt, it is true that in case of Vanaja Textiles Ltd. cited supra, and relied upon by assessee, Hon ble Kerala High Court has held as below: "Therefore, merely because of fact that return filed by petitioner on 31st Dec., 1986, is signed by executive director and not by managing director or director of company as stipulated under s. 140(c) of Act it is non est is not sustainable since petitioner has no case that return filed is not in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of Act. Hence, this contention raised by petitioner is not sustainable." question in that case was whether return signed by executive director and not by managing director or director as stipulated under s. 140(c) was valid, and that ratio decidendi has no application to facts of present case and for reasons discussed in paras 5.13 and 5.14 of this order. Similarly, in case of Masoneilan (India) Ltd. also cited supra and relied upon by assessee, Hon ble Kerala High Court has held as under: "It has been urged by learned counsel for Revenue that since signature by unauthorized person rendered return non est, it was no return for any purpose. question of there being defect needing rectification does not arise. We do not find any substance in this plea. If there is no defect, question of return becoming non est does not arise. signature of unauthorized person renders return defective to make it non est. Defect means blemish, fault or imperfection. It is lack of something necessary for completeness or perfection." In this case also, issue before Hon ble High Court relates to validity of return filed with signature of unauthorised person, and ratio of this decision also has no application to facts of present case and for reasons discussed in paras 5.13 and 5.14 of this order. Similarly, in case of M.R. Pratap vs. V.M. Muthukrishnan, ITO (supra), also relied upon by assessee, Hon ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: "In view of s. 139 r/w s. 140(c) of Act return has to be signed by principal officer of company. statutory obligation is cast on principal officer to sign tax returns. substitution of words made under new Amendment Act will not in any way alter position with regard to operation of provisions of IT Act as against managing director of company when he has signed return of company in such capacity. effect of amended s. 140(c) of Act is that company s return of income should be signed only by managing director or by any director, when there is no managing director, and not by secretary or treasurer, who are however, included within meaning of principal officer under s. 2(35) of Act. By introduction of s. 278B by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975, w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1975, it is enacted that, where offence under this Act has been committed by company, every person who, at time offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, company for conduct of business of company, as well as company, shall be deemed to be guilty of offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. effect of new section is to make every person connected with affairs of company, apart from managing director who has signed return, liable to be proceeded against and punished." In this case also, question before Hon ble High Court relates to validity of return, and effect of amendment made to provisions of s. 140(c) and s. 278B of Act and ratio of this decision has also no application to facts of present case and for reasons discussed in paras 5.13 and 5.14 of this order. It may be noted at this juncture, question before us in instant case is as to competence of authorised Senior Vice President (Finance) to file appeal before CIT(A) on behalf of company. That aspect has to be examined in light of provisions of r. 45 extracted above. Inasmuch as that rule prescribed that form of appeal shall be signed and verified by person who is authorised to sign return of income under s. 140 of IT Act , reference is warranted to that provision as well. That reference is limited to extent of ascertaining who is authorised under s. 140 to sign return, so as to determine person competent to sign form of appeal. Therefore, provisions of s. 140 have limited application insofar as r. 45 is concerned. ratio laid down in context of s. 140 for determining validity of returns filed ratio laid down in context of s. 140 for determining validity of returns filed with signatures of other persons, cannot have extended application to provisions of r. 45 for determining validity of appeal with signature and verification of someone other than person specified in s. 140 of Act, reason being that filing of return is in discharge of one s statutory obligation being mandatory, without any discretion as in case of institution of one s appeal. In any case, even as per ratio of above decisions relied upon by assessee, it cannot be said that Senior Vice President (Finance) is competent to sign and verify return and consequently form of appeal before CIT(A). resolution of board of directors of company authorizing Senior Vice President (Finance) to do certain acts on behalf of assessee cannot prevail over statutory provisions mandating compliance by specified persons to initiate valid proceedings. In case of Rajendra Kumar Maneklal Sheth (HUF) cited supra, and relied upon by assessee, Hon ble Gujarat High Court has noted facts of case in following words: "In present case, controversy pertains to order passed by AAC of IT, Ahmedabad Range-VI, in Appeal No. IT/CC.I/21 of 1975-76 filed by applicant Rajendrakumar Maneklal (HUF, Ahmedabad) with regard to order passed for asst. yr. 1972-73. Before appellate authority, it was contended by ITO, by filing written objections on 3rd Jan., 1977, against entertaining appeal that appeal was not properly filed by appellant as appeal form did not bear signature of applicant and was not signed by him but signed by somebody else. To that objection, applicant contended that appeal form really bore his signature and even if it was considered that appeal form was not signed by him, he should be permitted to submit revised appeal in Form No. 35 duly signed by him. Subsequently, along with signature, revised appeal in Form No. 35 duly signed by him was submitted to appellate authority and condonation of delay in filing appeal prayed for." On above factual background, Hon ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: "Held, that AAC had exercised his discretionary jurisdiction and had condoned delay and admitted appeal for adjudication on merits under s. 249(3) of IT Act, 1961. For condoning delay he had considered facts. By admitting appeal for adjudication on merits, Revenue was not likely to suffer any loss or prejudice. discretionary power exercised by appellate authority in curing so-called irregularity with regard to signature on appeal memo, did not call for any interference by Tribunal, particularly when fresh appeal memo duly signed by applicant was submitted before it." In that case, dispute related to authenticity of signature of person who was competent to sign and verify Form of Appeal before CIT(A) in terms of r. 45. dispute was only with regard to authenticity of signature and not competence of such person. Once that question about t h e authenticity of signature was raised, notwithstanding contention raised as to authenticity of signature on original form of appeal, fresh form of appeal with signature of that person was again filed along with petition for condonation of delay. Proceeding on basis of fresh Form of Appeal thus filed, duly condoning delay in its filing, appeal was decided on merits. In instant case, appellant declined to cure defect notwithstanding several opportunities given by CIT(A) and was only insisting all along that authorised Senior Vice President (Finance) was competent to file appeal on behalf of assessee. Hence, ratio of this decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court also has no application to facts of present case. However, decision of both Madras Bench of Tribunal and Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. cited supra, involving similar issue, should not be lost sight of. relevant observations of Tribunal in its order dt. 18th March, 1997 in RA Nos. 180 and 181/Mad/1996 (ITA Nos. 1226 and 1227/Mad/1994) in CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. read as under: "11. With our little knowledge of understanding and humble experience, we are unable to be convinced that such contents of entire para 4 running to 5 pages are only facts which are admitted and are found by Tribunal for drawing up statement of case, which are necessary to be stated in enclosure as per col. 3 of Form No. 37 prescribed under r. 48 framed under s. 256(1) of IT Act. In fact, other than paras 1 to 3 and 5 therein, entire para 4 running to 5 pages are appearing to us as if adverse appellate report sent by AO to CIT suggesting second appeal to Tribunal. We may also further add that it is also appearing as if judgment of higher forum passed over Tribunal s order in appeal. If we may further observe, such contents may be apt as arguments to be advanced in reference application under s. 256(2) of Act before Hon ble High Court. In our well considered opinion such criticisms as contained in contents of para 4 of Annexure should never be incorporated in enclosure to any reference application of either Revenue or assessee since, to repeat, Form No. 37 prescribed, specifically requires applicant to state facts which are admitted and are found by Tribunal for drawing up statement of case that are necessary to be stated in enclosure for ready reference as per col. 3 therein. If such kind of enclosure as instant one is encouraged, if would set up bad precedent. As it has been stated under ITAT r. 8 that grounds of appeal shall be without any arguments or narrative, statement of facts to be stated in enclosure should also be so. Furthermore, ITAT rule No. 12 also states that Tribunal may reject memorandum of appeal if is not in prescribed form or return it for being amended within such time as it may allow, and on revision after such amendment memorandum shall be signed and dated by officer competent to make endorsement under r. 17. In our considerate view, essential features of this part of rule also equally apply to reference application wherein statement of facts in enclosure is not in prescribed form." As applicant therein, CIT, Central-II, Madras, did not rectify defect pointed out by Tribunal despite repeated opportunities given by Tribunal insisting on Department s rectification of its defect, Tribunal dismissed reference application in limine, with following observations: "12. As stated earlier, reference application must be accompanied by brief summary of facts of case. enclosure is intended to contain narration of facts of case admitted and/or found by Tribunal. It should narration of facts of case admitted and/or found by Tribunal. It should eschew any discussion on merits of Tribunal s order or on question of law. statement is intended to serve as basis upon which Tribunal may, subject to right of other party to object, draw up statement of case in event of its deciding to refer question/s of law. It should, therefore, be drawn as objective statement of facts and not as applicant s version of what finding ought to be. If should be confined to facts presented upto stage of appeal and should not attempt to introduce any additional fact, material or contention which applicant might think of or discover subsequently. It may be emphasized once again that brevity is essence and that reference application is not memorandum of arguments. In this regard, we are supported by also treatise on Income-tax Law by Chaturvedi & Pithisaria. Further, if we look into income-tax r. 48 under which Form No. 37 prescribes that application under s. 256(1) requiring Tribunal to refer to High Court any question of law shall be made in Form No. 37. Besides this, if we look into provisions of s. 256(1) of Act, it also stipulates that assessee or CIT may .... by application in prescribed form... . context, tone and force in section is that word may means shall . Thus, both in Act as well as in rule thereunder, application in prescribed form is mandatory. Under these circumstances, we gave opportunity to Revenue to cure this defect in accordance with ratio decidendi laid down in CIT vs. ITAT 1975 CTR (Del) 142: (1975) 99 ITR 552 (Del) holding that defect was one being capable of being cured and Tribunal had power to permit, and ought to have permitted, CIT to rectify that defect. Unfortunately, after adjournment by two weeks, Revenue before us appeared only to state that enclosure is perfectly in order as stipulated and prescribed and opportunity given by Tribunal has been availed by it. We are unable to comprehend such plea of Revenue except only to sympathise in reference application of this kind. We have even openly indicated in Court that entire contents of para 4 running to 5 pages should not find place in reference application since remedy for it lies elsewhere, as, if at all, it can be made only in different proceeding like miscellaneous application. proceedings before us is not miscellaneous application to consider it. If there is any mistake apparent from record, it could be made only in miscellaneous application and if there is mistake apparent from law, it could be raised only in reference application. Unfortunately in instant case caption and contents raised by applicant before us is at cross-roads and purposes. Consequently, we are unable to pass over this hurdle of preliminary issue that statement of facts in enclosure is not in accordance with statutory prescription for coming to appreciate stand of both parties on merits of these applications. We may also further add that provisions of ITAT r. 19 supports appeal being treated as unadmitted by stating that mere issue of notice could not by itself mean that appeal had been admitted. Thus, for reasons detailed above, we view that these applications deserve to be rejected as unadmitted, defect having been not cured by revising statement of facts narrated in enclosure to questions sought for reference in spite of opportunity having been granted by Tribunal to Revenue to avail it." On writ petition filed by Revenue against above order of Tribunal, being Writ Petn. Nos. 4738 and 4739 of 1998, Hon ble Madras High Court, speaking through Hon ble Justice Mr. R. Jayasimha Babu, in very opening para 1 of its order dt. 24th Dec., 1998, observed as follows: "Sheer obduracy on part of Revenue s representative before Tribunal is cause for these petitions. Tribunal has acted reasonably in rejecting application filed by Revenue, as that application did not conform to Rules. Despite time and opportunity granted for removing defects ego of Department s representative appears to have come in way of his acknowledging defects and deleting irrelevant portions in enclosure to application for reference. dismissal of these petitions has been averted only by sensible undertaking now given by petitioner through counsel to delete offending portions from enclosure to application for reference. Persons who appear before adjudicatory forums whether as counsel, parties in person or as Authorized Representatives must at all times be conscious of fact that their presence in adjudicatory forum is for purpose of assisting Court or Tribunal to arrive at just decision in accordance with law on matters in controversy. Their role in adjudicatory forums is not that of adversaries vis-a-vis presiding officers. Their role is to assist, and to render such assistance effectively, they must follow rules or procedure which are meant to ensure orderly presentation of controversies brought before Court or Tribunal. Where forms prescribed under statute set out nature of materials which are required to be stated, it is wholly improper for counsel or for Authorised Representative or party to insist upon adding material which is irrelevant for purpose of particular proceeding however k be their view regarding correctness or otherwise of earlier order made by Court or Tribunal." With regard to defect in reference application, Hon ble High Court observed in paras 4 and 5 of its order dt. 24th Dec., 1998 as follows: "3. petitioner herein, after losing his appeal before Tribunal had applied to Tribunal for making reference to High Court under s. 256(1) of IT Act. Form No. 37 prescribed under r. 48 of IT Rules, 1962, sets out matters to be stated in such application for reference. Para 3 of form reads as under: ...That facts which are admitted and/or found by Tribunal and which are necessary for drawing up statement of case, are stated in enclosure for ready reference. What was thus required to be stated by petitioner in enclosure to Form No. 37 were acts which were either admitted and/or found by Tribunal, to extent they were necessary in drawing statement of case. In that enclosure it was wholly irrelevant and unnecessary for Revenue to set out all its grievances in relation to correctness of order that had been made by Tribunal, as application for reference is neither appeal to Tribunal against its own order nor is it petition for review of order made by Tribunal on appeal. In enclosure that was filed by Revenue along with Form No. 37 there was long list of grounds running into several pages setting out alleged errors in order of Tribunal. Tribunal had, therefore, rightly directed petitioner s representative to delete that irrelevant materials and had given two weeks time to petitioner to do so. It had also directed petitioner s representative to recast certain questions, reference of which had been sought. While petitioner s representative reframed some of questions it was nevertheless asserted before Tribunal that irrelevant material set out in enclosure to application should be allowed to stand and form part of record. Tribunal rightly held that enclosure which did not conform to requirements of r. 48 and Form No. 37 would render application for reference itself defective and such defective application was not required to be entertained by Tribunal, especially when opportunity had been given to rectify defect and Revenue had persisted in refusing to rectify defect. Learned counsel for Revenue submitted that statement of case, in event of reference being made, is to be drawn up by Tribunal and therefore, presence of irrelevant material in enclosure to application filed by Revenue should not come in way of reference application being entertained and considered. fact that statement of case is ultimately to be drawn up by Tribunal does not justify incorporation of irrelevant material in enclosure to its application, and insisting that such enclosure remains part of record. conduct of petitioner s representative shows wholly improper and antagonistic attitude towards Tribunal which is wholly unwarranted. Tribunal was in that background not required to entertain application which was clearly defective and it was open to Tribunal to reject same. petitioner having belatedly realised folly of his representative has now through standing counsel for Revenue undertaken to delete irrelevant portion in enclosure to Form No. 37 and has sought opportunity to do so. Even though in this case Revenue is seeking to save itself from folly of its own officers, in larger interests of justice and in public interest, I consider it in circumstances, just to permit petitioner to delete irrelevant statements made in enclosure to Form No. 37 in reference application filed by it in RA Nos. 180 and 181 of 1996 before Tribunal, Madras (Bench A)." While Hon ble Madras High Court has, however, set aside order of Tribunal impugned before it, to enable petitioner Department to comply with what it has undertaken before Hon ble High Court, and which was failed earlier by Department to be complied with before Tribunal in spite of Tribunal s directions to Department by giving ample time for such compliance, it is worthwhile to extract hereunder concluding remarks of Hon ble High Court in its judgment: "6. impugned order is set aside to enable petitioner to do so. Tribunal shall consider application for reference on merits after petitioner deletes irrelevant portions from enclosures to application. conduct of representative of Revenue which has resulted in Revenue having come to this Court by way of this writ petition is kly deprecated. respondent assessee has been dragged to this Court wholly on account of folly of petitioner s representative. petitioner shall, therefore, pay sum of Rs. 1,500 (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only as costs to respondent. WMPs are consequently dismissed." Ratio of above decision (of Madras Bench of Tribunal, as upheld) by Hon ble Madras High Court squarely applies to facts of present case. In instant case as well, repeated opportunities afforded by CIT(A) to assessee to rectify defect in Form of Appeal, which was not signed and verified by person specified in terms of r. 45 of IT Rules, 1962 r/w s. 140(c) of IT Act, proved futile, as appellant assessee was adamant insisting on authority of Senior Vice President (Finance) to file appeal before CIT(A), which prompted CIT(A) to dismiss appeal before him in limine. As discussed above, appeal papers filed with signature and verification of Senior Vice President (Finance) are not in conformity with statutory requirements, and CIT(A) as such was justified in his action in dismissing appeal before him in limine. Just as learned standing counsel for Revenue has done in case before Hon ble Madras High Court, learned counsel for assessee in instant case has also realised folly of assessee before CIT(A) in refusing to cure defect in appeal papers pointed out to him despite repeated opportunities afforded, and prayed for one more opportunity undertaking to cure at least now defect in appeal before CIT(A) if remitted before him even at cost being awarded appeal before CIT(A) if remitted before him even at cost being awarded by Tribunal on assessee as awarded by Hon ble Madras High Court on Department. Thus, on totality of facts and entirety of circumstances of instant case as well as in light of several case laws aforesaid, especially of Hon ble Madras High Court, coupled with undertaking of assessee s counsel given hereinabove in open Court, as interest of justice would also be meted out, we deem if just, fit and proper to hold that order of CIT(A) might be set aside and restored to himself for decision de novo on preliminary point of admitting appeal, after giving opportunity of being heard to assessee and also subject to assessee s fulfilment of conditions following: (a) assessee company shall rectify defect by compliance with aforesaid provisions of law as enshrined in IT Act and Rules, by setting right Form No. 35 under signature and verification by managing director or, as case may be, director of assessee company; (b) assessee shall set forth grounds of appeal before CIT(A) without being argumentative or narrative but concisely and under distinct heads, numbering them consecutively, so that provisions of rule and law are strictly complied with; (c) assessee shall pay to Department by way of cost, amount of Rs. 2,500 which we hereby award considering facts and circumstances of instant case revealing sheer obdurate behaviour of assessee, as per ratio decidendi of Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. cited supra. (d) assessee shall file before CIT(A) petition, duly signed by competent person as mentioned under (a) above, supported by sworn affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him till defects therein are cured as indicated above. On assessee s compliance of aforesaid conditions and in event of delay being condoned by him, CIT(A) may adjudicate issues on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to assessee and duly considering any relevant stand and material that may be relied upon in support thereof before passing speaking order in accordance with law. We may also add that fulfilment of conditions stipulated by us as above is sine qua non in view of fact that ratio decidendi of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta, cited supra and relied upon by Revenue, is squarely applicable to facts and circumstances of instant case on issue in question, and from which judgment it would be worthwhile to extract relevant portion hereunder: "The right to appeal is neither absolute right nor ingredient of natural justice principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi judicial adjudications. right to appeal is statutory right and it can be circumscribed by conditions in grant. If statute gives right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfilment of those conditions that right becomes vested in and exercisable by appellant." Before parting with, we cannot fail to place on record our appreciation of strenuous efforts put on by both learned representatives before us for Revenue and particularly for assessee, latter exercising good Court craft, perhaps realizing folly of assessee and consequently without unduly justifying it, while attempting to give life to stands of both parties respectively. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. *** GOLD STONE EXPORTS LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)