2020 (2) TMI 828 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - assessee has not filed the appeal electronically within the time before the appellate Commissioner - assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form - HELD THAT - 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. In this respect, we rely upon the judgement of RANI KUSUM VERSUS KANCHAN DEVI ORS. 2005 (8) TMI 709 - SUPREME COURT wherein has reiterated that if in a given circumstances, the technical consideration and substantial Justice are pitted against each other, then in that eventuality the cause of substantial Justice deserves to be preferred and cannot be overshadowed or negatived by such technical considerations. Apart from above we have also noticed that in case titled Gurinder Singh Dhillon Vrs. ITO 2017 (4) TMI 1359 - ITAT DELHI had restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) under identical circumstances with a direction do decide appeal afresh on merit, after condoning the delay, if any. Since in the present case, we find that appeal in the paper form was already with 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 within the time before the appellate Commissioner. We remit this matter back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to consider the appeal filed by the assessee after condoning the delay and matter to be heard on merits after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed manually instead of electronically before Ld. CIT(A).
2. Dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) due to delay in filing electronically.
3. Interpretation of procedural rules in the context of substantial justice.
4. Precedents regarding technical considerations versus substantial justice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant initially filed a manual appeal, which was later electronically filed after the Ld. CIT(A) directed electronic filing.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing a delay in electronic filing and lack of proper petition for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the manual appeal was filed on time and that it was the first year electronic filing was mandatory.
3. The ITAT observed that while electronic filing was mandated from March 2016, there was no corresponding amendment in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized the importance of not denying justice based on procedural technicalities.
4. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the ITAT highlighted that procedural laws should not impede justice. The ITAT noted a similar case where the ITAT Delhi Bench directed the appeal to be decided on merit after condoning any delay.
5. Considering the facts, case laws, and the principle of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to hear the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal and provides a detailed understanding of the ITAT's decision in the case.