9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had finished filing of he returns upto the stage of ‘Save’ status. However, electronic-submission thereof was effected only on 26.4.2013 - e-filing status of the appellant is non-intentional and simply it is ignorance of their part. It is also not disputed that in the initial stages of the ACES implementation even established assesees with sufficient infrastructure were facing problems of e-filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) in respect of one appeal for the earlier period April 2011 to September 2011 has allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Appeal filed by appellant relating to period April 2011 to March 2012 has been rejected and order of original authority is upheld. Ld. Advocate draws my attention to para-8 of the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows : 08. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it had been filed on 26.04.2013 only. However, it is seen that the ST-3 returns pertaining to the following periods had been filed promptly without any mistake. For instance, the ST-3 for the period Apr.12 to Jun.12 had been filed on 25.11.12, wherein they had got the 'filed' status. At least on seeing that, the appellant could have corrected the previous returns. But neither the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) has fairly taken cognizance of the fact that appellant had finished filing of he returns upto the stage of Save status. However, electronic-submission thereof was effected only on 26.4.2013. I further note that Commissioner (Appeals) has held that e-filing status of the appellant is non-intentional and simply it is ignorance of their part. It is also not disputed that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
