2019 (12) TMI 1429 - AT - Income Tax

Non filling of appeal electronically - Appeal filed manually - Whether appeal cannot be treated as non-est in the eyes of law as appeal was not filed electronically as prescribed under Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules 1962? - HELD THAT - Appeal was filed manually within the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. No doubt Income Tax Rules prescribes that the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) should be filed electronically. It is matter of record that ld. CIT(A) had accepted the appeal the defect was pointed out only in the year 2018. The right of appeal is an substantive right. The form of filing of appeal procedure prescribed falls within the domain of law of procedure. The law of procedure has to be approached understood and appreciated as a helpmate in the course of the process of administration of justice. Procedural provisions should be so construed as to subserve the course of justice and not to hinder it. It is now well-settled that a procedural provision ordinarily should not be construed as mandatory if the defect in the act done in pursuance of it can be cured by permitting appropriate rectification to be carried out at a subsequent stage. Procedural laws are devised and enacted for the purpose of advancing justice. Reference can be made to the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust 1991 (7) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . In the present case though the appeal was filed manually ld. CIT(A) had taken cognizance of appeal memo. Therefore we hold that ld. CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the assessments. We remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. Hence appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2009-2010, Disallowance of set off and carry forward loss, Disallowance of purchases of diamonds, Appeal filed manually instead of electronically, Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) in limine without considering merits

In the case, the appellant, a company engaged in trading gold, diamond, and silver ornaments, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Assessing Officer disallowed the set off and carry forward loss of B32,26,332/- and purchases of diamonds from M/s. Navkar of B4,86,000/-. The appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) manually, but the CIT(A) raised concerns regarding the manual filing instead of electronic filing as prescribed by the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine as the appellant did not respond to the notice. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, appealed before the Appellate Tribunal.

During the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant's Authorized Representative argued that the appeal was filed manually within the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the right of appeal is a substantive right and procedural provisions should be construed to advance justice. Referring to a decision of the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the appellant with a due opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering merits before dismissing an appeal and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the CIT(A) in accordance with the law.