9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 CIT(Appeals). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership and is running the business in the name and style of Shrikunj Corporation at Surat, Gujarat. 4. On 28.03.2016, the petitioner received an order dated 18.03.2016 passed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act"). 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal on 22.04.2016 in Form No.35 manually before respondent no. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that since Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (For short "the Rules") mandates the e-filing of the appeals with effect from 01.03.2016, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner appeared before respondent no.1 and made detailed submissions. 13. However, respondent no.1 passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2022 under section 250 of the Act dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Avinash Poddar for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed the appeal on 15.06.2016 within the extended time as per Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 and therefore, the appeal ought to have been decided on merits by CIT(Appeals). 15. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani referring to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.4 in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that statement made in Form No. 35 is incorrect and the discretion to condone the delay was not exercised. Further, Circular No. 20 of 2016 was applied and the case of the Petitioner was not found covered under any of the two categories of taxpayers, i.e. (i) taxpayers who could not successfully e-file appeal, and (ii) taxpayers who had filed paper appeal, for whom the time limit to e-file appeal was extended upto 15.06.2016. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Provisions of Clause (3) of Section 249 of the Act were also considered. However, in Column No. 15 of Form No. 35 nothing was mentioned by the Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal, the appeal was dismissed. 6. I say that, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court may be pleased to accept the above explanation and request not impose cost in the present case. principles of natural justice have been embedded in Form No. 35 itself by providing the Petitioner to mention whether there was a delay in filing of the appeal (Column No. 14) and providing opportunity to explain the reasons for such delay in filing of the Appeal (Column No. 15). However, if this Hon'ble Court is of the view that there has been a default in adhering to principles of natural justice as required, I tender an unconditional apology for such action and such action is deeply regretted. It is thus prayed before this Hon'ble Court that a lenient view may be taken and accordingly appropriate orders be passed." 16. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
