9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). It is claimed that the assessee was not aware of the amended procedure for e-filing of appeals. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal on this short ground of not filing of appeal electronically . CIT(A) did not decide any issue raised by the assessee in his appeals on merits. Under these facts and circumstances of the case , we are of the considered view that liberal approach is required to be taken to advance justice as the procedure are handmade to advance justice. When technicalities are pitted against justice, the courts will lean towards advancement of justice. It could not be shown by Revenue that the assessee acted in defiance of law deliberately . Thus, we are setting aside all the issue’s arising in this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the issue’s raised by assessee on merits in accordance with law. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes - I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2019 - Shri C.N Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Neha Paranjape For the Revenue : Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR) ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as all the facts are available on record and hence keeping in view decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC) as well decision of Full Bench of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited v. CIT reported in (1993) 199 ITR 351(Bom.) , this additional ground stand admitted . We order accordingly. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, LIC commission and income from other sources including agriculture income, interest income etc.. The assessee filed his return of income with Revenue on 02.12.2013 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the 1961 Act. Later , the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by Revenue and the assessment was framed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 22.02.2016 wherein income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 50,47,050/- as against returned income of ₹ 34,09,725/-. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO vide assessment order dated 22.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) for deciding the issues on merits. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record . We have observed that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, LIC commission and income from other sources including agriculture income, interest income etc.. We have observed that the assessee filed his return of income on 02.12.2013 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the 1961 Act. Later , the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny wherein assessment was framed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 22.02.2016 wherein income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 50,47,050/- as against returned income of ₹ 34,09,725/-. 6.2. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO vide assessment order dated 22.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 in Form No. 35 by manually filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) instead of e-filing of the said appeal as was mandated by Rule 45 of the 1962 Rules , which system of e-filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) was introduced by department w.e.f. 01.03.2016 . It is pertinent to mention that CBDT had prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Revenue only wef 01.03.2016 and the assessee filed his appeal before learned CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 manually but the said appeal was filed within time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act. The CBDT extended deadline for efiling of appeal before learned CIT(A) to 15.06.2016 , vide circular 20 of 2016 dated 26.05.2016. The assessee still did not e-filed its appeal before learned CIT(A). It is claimed that the assessee was not aware of the amended procedure for e-filing of appeals. The learned CIT(A) dismissed assessee s appeal on this short ground of not filing of appeal electronically . The learned CIT(A) did not decide any issue raised by the assessee in his appeals on merits. Under these facts and circumstances of the case , we are of the considered view that liberal approach is required to be taken to advance justice as the procedure are handmade to advance justice. When technicalities are pitted against justice, the courts will lean towards advancement of justice. It could not be shown by Revenue that the assessee acted in defiance of law deliberately . Thus, we are setting aside all the issue s arising in this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee merely on the basis of alleged default of not having filed electronically. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted even though the appeal was filed in paper form and under the relevant provisions of I.T. Act 1961, but the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing hearing of appeal filed by the assessee merely on the basis of alleged default of not having filed electronically. Ld. AR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken into account that the alleged compliance defaults were of a technical nature and being introduced for the first time in the statute book ought to have considered legally and heard the appeal on merits. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in denying an opportunity of appeal to deserving appellant and thus resulted in denial of opportunity of Justice in the deserving case. 5. On the other hand Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Department supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal 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 the Coordinate Bench of Hon ble ITAT Delhi Bench in appeal ITA No. 6595/Del/16 in case titled Gurinder Singh Dhillon Vrs. ITO 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 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. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the case laws discussed and relied upon above, we are of the considered view that the cause of Justice would be served in case, we set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) allow the present appeal. While seeking the compliance, we direct the assessee to file the appeal electro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
