2018 (2) TMI 1852 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasonable cause for the delay in assessee s filing the appeal in electronic form - Paper appeal filed by the appellant on 14.03.2016 is an invalid appeal as the same was not filed in prescribed form and verified in prescribed manner as stipulated under the statue and hence the same is not maintainable - HELD THAT - This was the first year of the rule that appeals are to be filed electronically. Further, there is plea by the assessee that there were some technical glitches in the server also. In my considered opinion, the reasonable cause attributed has considerable cogency. Hence, condone the delay in filing the appeal in electronic form before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to consider the issue in appeal on merits and pass a speaking order after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed manually instead of electronically, Delay in filing appeal electronically, Commissioner's power to condone delay

Analysis:
1. Appeal filed manually instead of electronically:
The appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed as it was filed in paper form on 14.03.2016, contrary to the requirement of filing electronically introduced from 01.03.2016. The appellant argued that technical difficulties and lack of a fully functional system led to the manual filing. The CBDT had allowed assesses facing such issues to file electronically by 15.06.2016. The Commissioner considered the appeal invalid and not maintainable, as it did not comply with the modified Form No. 35 requirement. The appellant's subsequent electronic filing on 12.12.2016 was not considered relevant by the Commissioner.

2. Delay in filing appeal electronically:
The appellant requested the paper appeal filed on 14.03.2016 to be clubbed with the electronic appeal filed on 12.12.2016 for a joint decision. However, the Commissioner refused to condone the delay, stating that if an appeal is not filed in the prescribed manner, it must be treated as invalid. The Commissioner held that he had no power to waive or condone such non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of the grounds raised in the paper appeal.

3. Commissioner's power to condone delay:
The Commissioner, in his order, emphasized that he lacked the authority to waive or condone non-compliance with the prescribed form of filing appeals. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal electronically. Considering it was the first year of the electronic filing rule and technical glitches were reported, the ITAT decided to condone the delay. The ITAT directed the Commissioner to consider the appeal on its merits and provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the importance of considering reasonable causes for non-compliance and providing opportunities for proper representation before dismissing appeals solely on technical grounds.