2018 (6) TMI 1171 - AT - Income Tax

Mandate for E-filling of appeal - Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically before the appellate Commissioner - Held that - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of RaniKusum Vrs. Kanchan Devi, 2005 (8) TMI 709 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, as it is always subservient to and is in aid of Justice. Any interpretation, which eludes or frustrates the recipient of Justice, is not to be followed. From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however only the e-filing of appeal has not been done by the assessee and according to us, the same is only a technical consideration Since in the present case, we find that appeal in the paper form was already with Ld. CIT(A), therefore in that eventuality the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically before the appellate Commissioner. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Validity of appeal filed in paper form without electronic filing - Denial of opportunity of appeal - Interpretation of procedural law as mandatory - Consideration of technical defaults against substantial justice - Precedent of setting aside orders for deciding appeal afresh on merit.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2013-14. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limini due to the mandatory requirement of e-filing of appeals before the Commissioner with effect from March 1, 2016, as per Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee challenged this decision, arguing that the appeal was filed in paper form within the prescribed period of limitation, and the Commissioner should have considered the technical nature of the default and heard the appeal on merits. The Department supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

The ITAT Mumbai considered the introduction of e-filing of appeals under Rule 45 of the IT Rules, 1962, and noted that there was no corresponding amendment in the substantive law, the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT observed that the Supreme Court has emphasized that rules of procedure should not lead to a denial of justice to deserving litigants, and procedural laws should be subservient to the cause of justice. The ITAT also referred to a judgment stating that technical considerations should not overshadow substantial justice.

The ITAT highlighted a case where a similar matter was restored to the file of the Commissioner for deciding the appeal afresh on merit. In the present case, the ITAT found that the appeal was already with the Commissioner in paper form, and the failure to file electronically was a technical consideration. Relying on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, the ITAT set aside the orders of the Commissioner and allowed the appeal, directing the assessee to file the appeal electronically within a specified timeframe. The Commissioner was instructed to consider the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice in the adjudication process and setting aside technical defaults when substantial justice is at stake.