ELECTRON VOLT RENEWABLES PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/4534/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Electron Volt Renewables Private Limited, which faced issues with the online filing of an appeal against an assessment order due to technical problems with affixing a digital signature. Initially, the company attempted to file the appeal online, which was unsuccessful, leading to a physical filing. The appellate authority dismissed the physical appeal as invalid due to non-compliance with the prescribed verification manner and provisions of Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners challenged this decision in the High Court, seeking to have the dismissal set aside and the appeals considered on merits. The court, after hearing the arguments, directed the appellate authority to consider the date of the manual filing for assessing any delay in the subsequent online appeal, thereby ensuring that the petitioners' rights were protected without dismissing the procedural compliance of digital filing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 680190 (HC-AMARAVATI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY PUNNA; G SHOWRI
• Assessee Lawyers: A RAO
• Keywords: Certiorarified Mandamus; Digital Signature; Invalid appeal; Judicial discipline; Natural Justice
• Section: 250; 249

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4534 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/s Electron Volt Renewables Private Limited, (Stuck off Company) Represented by its Erstwhile Managing Director, Mr. Saaketh Preetham Kakumanu 54-16-8/17A, Loyola College, Vijayawada-520008. Sri. Saaketh Preetham Kakumanu 2. Son of Venkateswara Rao Kakumanu, Share Holder of the Petitioner-Company, Vijayawada ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Vijayawada. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Govt, of India, Delhi 2. 3. 4. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in ;the Gircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents relating to the Order in DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057891490(1), dated 11- 11-2023 (Ex.P-1), passed by the 3rd Respondent, U/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and =«* . { A) To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, holding that the Order in DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057891490(1), dated 11- 11-2023 (Ex.P-1), passed by the 3rd Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, against the judicial discipline, and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same, consequently. B) To direct the 3RD Respondent, to consider that the Appeal filed 29.04.2016 on paper form Appeal CIT(A),m Vijayawada/10016/2019-20 and the Appeal presented in online mode in no. on 30.04.2019 as one and the same and single Appeal, and the same may be disposed of on merits. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant the Order in DIN ITBA /NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057891490(1), dated 11-11-2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA (Ex.P-1), Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G. ARUN SHOWRI, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010023632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No: 4534/2024. [3473] K Between: M/s. Electron Volt Renewables Private Limited and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Income Tax Officer and others Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.ASARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.V1JAY KUMAR PUNNA The Court made the following; IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4534 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Narendar) Heard Sri A. Sarveswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. This is yet another peculiar case where a party desirous of complying with the mandatory provisions has been baulked by the very technology that has been mandated as a game changer. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The case of the petitioners is that the 1®' petitioner company-assessee attempted to prefer an appeal online, being aggrieved by the assessment order, but as issues arose with regard to affixing the digital signature, the appeal was not accepted online and, therefore, a representation dated 29.04.2016 was made to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), seeking permission for physical filing of the appeal along with challan fee and acknowledgment. A copy of the representation acknowledged by the 3. GN,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4534 of 2024 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 29.04.2016 is also filed along with material papers. 4. Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax, would take the Court to the order dated 11.11.2023 passed on the said appeal filed in physical form, which is produced as Ex.P1 along with the material papers and impugned in the instant writ petition. He would draw the attention of the Court to the operative portion of the order at paragraph 4.3, which reads under: as “4.3. In light of the above, it is held that the present appeal filed in paper form, not verified in the prescribed manner as well non-compliant with the provisions of Section 249 of the Act is treated as invalid, ab initio. Accordingly, there would be no cause to examine any other aspect of this appeal. In the result, the present appeal filed in paper form (after 01.03.2016) is held to be INVALID. For statistical purposes, it is treated as DISMISSED. ” Learned Senior Standing Counsel would further submit that subsequently, the 1®' petitioner has preferred one more appeal online and that the same is pending consideration. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners would an apprehension that the said appeal filed online may be rejected 6. express on GN,J&VGKR,J W.P.No.4534 of 2024 in our considered ground of being belated. The apprehension opinion, is not misplaced. Be that as it may, the the present imbroglio has come about not omission or commission on facie appears to be on is well known, beyond 7. account of any human error or any the part of either of the parties, but prima of technical issues which are, as is on account human control at times. of the order dated . The authority has recorded perused the operative portion 11.11.2023 as reproduced hereinabove that the appeal is treated as invalid We have 8. ab initio, from which it is clear invalidly filed appeal. authority has treated the appeal as an that the The intent of the authority is which states, “For statistical purposes Thus, it is apparent that the is further amplified by the last sentence. , it is treated as dismissed’’. appeal filed manually has not been of the matter, the order heard and disposed of on merits. In that view considered opinion, would not warrant any impugned, in our interference. apprehension expressed by the be rejected on the ground be without any basis. Be that as it may, the petitioners that the appeal filed online may of delay, also cannot be said to 9. The 4 GN,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4534of 2024 apprehension is reasonable as delay is also a ground on which the right of appeal can be negated by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion 10. that the instant writ petition can be disposed of by directing the appellate authority to take into consideration the date of filing of the manual appeal for the purposes of calculating and appreciating the issue of delay in respect of the appeal preferred online. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- M SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGIST^fl //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER S To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Vijayawada. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Govt. Of India, Delhi, 4. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 5. One CC to SRI A SARVESWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, Advocate [OPUC] m r 7. One CC to SRI G. ARUN SHOWRI, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. [OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies Madhu HIGH COURT ^’f^D:09/09/2024 ■ A 4 • ', \" .*■ ^ > t V • f' ORDER WP.No.4534 of 2024 ano«^ i « 3 MAR 2025 Currwit ejection . ^:^SPATC«*5,*' DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS "