9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 291 - AT - Income TaxCondone the delay in e-filing - manual filing appeal before CIT(A) - Held that - Facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ritu Verma vs. ACIT (2017 (8) TMI 1383 - ITAT DELHI)therefore, respectfully following the said precedent, direct the CIT(A) to condone the delay in dispute and also in the interest of justice, set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merit and pass a speaking order.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of manual appeal due to non-filing of e-appeal. 2. Failure to provide opportunity of being heard and condone delay in e-filing. 3. Legal validity of service of notice and technical omission. 4. Mandatory e-filing of appeal not stipulated in IT Act. 5. Lack of legal knowledge/advice for e-filing. Issue 1: Dismissal of manual appeal due to non-filing of e-appeal The Assessee filed an appeal against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but it was dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-filing of e-appeal. The Assessee argued that the dismissal was unjust as the manual appeal was filed within the prescribed time under section 249(2) of the IT Act. The Ld. Counsel requested for setting aside the issues for fresh adjudication and condonation of delay in e-filing, citing a similar case where such issues were remanded for reconsideration. Issue 2: Failure to provide opportunity of being heard and condone delay in e-filing The Ld. Counsel submitted evidence including an application for condonation of delay in e-filing, written submissions, and acknowledgment of e-filing to support the contention that the delay was not deliberate and the Assessee was deprived of a fair hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) was requested to reconsider the issues and condone the delay in e-filing. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedent, directed the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, provide a fair opportunity of being heard, and decide the appeal on merit. Issue 3: Legal validity of service of notice and technical omission The Assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to verify the legal validity of the notice and omitted to point out technical defects during the hearings, depriving the Assessee of the opportunity to rectify them. The Assessee sought a fresh adjudication with proper consideration of all aspects, including the technicalities involved in the case. Issue 4: Mandatory e-filing of appeal not stipulated in IT Act The Assessee argued that the mandatory e-filing of appeal was not explicitly stipulated in sections 246, 249, or 250 of the IT Act. The absence of a clear requirement for e-filing, coupled with the lack of legal knowledge/advice on the matter, was presented as a valid reason for the non-compliance with e-filing procedures. Issue 5: Lack of legal knowledge/advice for e-filing The Assessee highlighted the lack of legal knowledge or advice as a reason for not filing the appeal electronically, emphasizing that there was no deliberate default on their part. The request was made to quash the impugned order and hear the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay, based on the principle of preferring substantial justice over technical considerations. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, provide a fair hearing, and decide the appeal on merit. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring justice by considering all relevant factors and technicalities involved in the case.
|
