2019 (12) TMI 1430 - AT - Income Tax

Non filling of appeal electronically within period of limitation - 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 - As the assessee has filed its appeal manually on 25.04.2016 and has e-filed the same on 12.01.2019 the said e-filed appeal would in fact relate back to the date of filing of the appeal manually on 25.04.2016. This being so we are of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is unsustainable and consequently set aside the same and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. As relying on M/S. SOUTH INDIA BOTTLING CO. PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI 2019 (8) TMI 1624 - ITAT CHENNAI the orders of the learned CIT(A) are set aside and the issues raised in the appeal are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) based on delay in e-filing, condonation of delay, applicability of Co-ordinate Bench decisions, setting aside CIT(A) order, restoration of appeal for adjudication on merits.

Issue 1: Appeal Dismissal due to Delay in e-filing
The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10, which was dismissed due to delay in e-filing. The Assessee argued that the delay should be condoned based on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case. The assessment order was served on 31.03.2016, and the appeal was manually filed on 19.04.2016, with e-filing on 02.08.2016 after a show-cause notice. The Assessee requested the CIT(A) to consider the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

Issue 2: Co-ordinate Bench Decision
The Tribunal referred to a Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M/s. South India Bottling Company Private Limited, where the CIT(A)'s order was set aside under similar circumstances. The Co-ordinate Bench directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits, emphasizing that e-filing related back to the original manual filing date, thus no delay existed. The Tribunal followed this precedent and set aside the CIT(A) order in the current case, restoring the issues for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, partly for statistical purposes, based on the Co-ordinate Bench decision's applicability. The Tribunal found that the delay in e-filing should be condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to consider the appeal on merits after setting aside their order. The decision highlighted the importance of following precedents set by Co-ordinate Benches in similar cases to ensure fair treatment and adherence to statutory requirements.