BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD., Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, Jaipur

ITA 1174/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6240 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMLENDU VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHILESH KATARIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/J P/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20008-09 TO 2014-15. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., KARAN AUTO HERO HONDA SHOWROOM, MUSEUM CIRCLE, JAIPUR ROAD, BIKANER. CUKE VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCB 1458 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHILESH KATARIA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VIMLENDU VERMA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/01/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH : THESE SEVEN APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 2 ND JULY, 2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE COMMON GRO UNDS IN THESE APPEALS EXCEPT QUANTUM OF ADDITION VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAWAS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL HOLDING IT TO BE D EFECTIVE THOUGH THE SAME WAS DULY FILED MANUALLY WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION RAISED AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE Q UASHED. 2. THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN NOT COMMUNICATING THE DEFECTS WHILE ACCEPTI NG THE 2 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. APPEAL MANUALLY AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS SERIOUS VI OLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HENCE, NOW HEARING IS PRAYED TO BE ALLOWED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRE D IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN NOT ALLOWING FILING OF APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AND GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 4. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) /R.W.S. 1 53A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. 5. RS. 9563/-. THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN DISALLOWING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESI AND PF ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYMENT. 6. RS. 50594/-. THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN DISALLOWING TDS AS PER PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 43B ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SUBMISSION OF CHALLAN. 7. RS.1,67,855/-. THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN DISALLOWING ENTRY TAX AS PER PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 43B ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEPOSIT OF ENTRY TAX. 8. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONORS INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND, MODIFY OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 RELATE TO DISMISSAL OF THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF E-FILING. THESE SEVEN APPEALS ARE ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE IT ACT AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MANUAL APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CI T (A). SINCE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY TREATING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR WANT OF E-FILING, THEREFORE, FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE RAI SED IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS COMMON FOR ALL THE APPEALS. 3. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED ON 22 ND MARCH, 2016 WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28 TH MARCH, 3 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. 2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON 21 ST APRIL, 2016 AS THE LIMITATION FOR FILING THE APPEA L WAS TO BE EXPIRED ON 26 TH APRIL, 2016. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MA NUALLY WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON 21 ST JUNE, 2018. THE LD. CIT (A) WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY TH E DEFECT OF NOT FILING THE APPEALS ELECTRONICALLY DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS IN LIMINE. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE DEFECT ON ACCOUN T OF E-FILING OF THE APPEALS. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AMENDMENT IN T HE RULE 45 OF IT RULES WAS BROUGHT INTO STATUTE ON 01.03.2016, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE JUST AFTER THE AMENDMENT AND DUE TO BONAFIDE A ND INADVERTENT MISTAKE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS MANUALLY. THE LD. A/R HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED TO E-FILE THE APPEALS AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON MERITS. IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 12 TH JULY, 2018 IN CASE OF KAILASH CHAND JAT VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 373/JP/2018 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN AN IDENTICAL CASE HAS TREATED THE APPEALS FILED WITHOUT E-FILING AND IN NON-COMPLIANCE OF RULE 45 OF IT RULES AS DEFECTIVE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE OR RECTIFY THE DEFECT IN THE APPEALS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND REMANDED THE MATTER WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO E-FILE THE APPEAL AND THEN DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION DATED 16 TH MAY, 2018 OF MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ASTERIX REINFORC ED LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 4 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. 426/M/2018 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL H AS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF FILING OF THE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC MODE AS THE MATTER OUGH T TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS INSTEAD OF TECHNICAL REASONS. HENCE THE LD. A/R HA S PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE M ATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE LD. CIT (A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T IT IS NOT A MATTER OF DEFECT IN THE APPEALS BUT THE APPEALS NOT FILING IN COMPLI ANCE TO RULE 45 OF THE IT RULES ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND VALID APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. HE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT (A ) HAS RECORDED THE FACTS REGARDING FILING OF THE APPEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE S EVEN APPEALS ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE IT ACT DATED 22 ND MARCH, 2016. ALL THESE SEVEN APPEALS WERE FILED W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON 21 ST APRIL, 2016. THE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARIN G ON 21 ST JUNE, 2018. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO NOTICE OR SHOW CAUSE NO TICE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT (A) BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEALS BY TR EATING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR WANT OF E-FILING. THEREFORE, WE F IND THAT DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RE MOVE THE DEFECT AND TO FILE THE APPEALS ELECTRONICALLY AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER, ONCE THE APPEALS FILED MANUALLY WERE TAKEN UP FOR H EARING, THEN EVEN IF THERE WAS A DEFECT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FILING OF THE APPEALS ELEC TRONICALLY, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE DEFE CT. THOUGH THERE MAY BE A 5 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. QUESTION OF DELAY DUE TO LATE FILING OF THE APPEALS ELECTRONICALLY, HOWEVER, ONCE THE APPEALS WERE FILED MANUALLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LI MITATION, THEN THE SUBSEQUENT FILING OF THE APPEALS ELECTRONICALLY CAN BE TAKEN U P BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT A DELAY FOR TAKING THE STEPS BUT IT WAS ONLY A DEFECT IN FILING THE APPEALS. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE AMENDMENT IN RULE 45 OF THE IT RULES WAS BROUGHT INTO STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.03.2016 AND, THERE FORE, THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE AMENDMENT REQUIRING E-FILING OF THE APPEAL AND HENC E THE NON-FILING OF THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A DEFECT SO FATAL TO STRAIGHT-AWAY DISMISS THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE SAID DEFECT. THIS BENCH HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN CASE OF KAILASH CH AND JAT VS. ACIT (SUPRA) IN PARA 4 AS UNDER :- 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WE LL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (MANUALLY) WAS DULY TAKEN UP FOR HEARING B Y THE LD. CIT(A) AND AFTER HEARING THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E SHRI K.L. CHOUDHARY, C.A. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FINALLY DISMISSE D THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF NON MAINTAINABILITY IN PARAS 3.1.1, 3.1.2 & 4 AS UNDER:- 3.1.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBM ISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE PAPER APPEAL. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED MANUALLY IN THIS OFFICE ON 23.1.2017. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 45 OF THE IT RULES, 1961, IT HAS BEEN MADE COMPULSORY/MAN DATORY TO E-FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) W.E.F. 01.03.20 16 IN RESPECT OF PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH RETURN OF IN COME ELECTRONICALLY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS TIME LIMIT WAS E XTENDED TO 15.06.2016, VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016 (F. NO. 279/M ISC/M- 54/2016/ITJ DATED 26.05.2016). DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ITBA SYSTEM WAS CHECKED TO VERIFY WHETHER 6 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY A S MANDATED UNDER RULE 45 OF IT RULES. THE ITBA VERIFICATION SH OWED THAT THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN FILED ELECTRONICALLY. 3.1.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENCE TH AT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 249 R.W. RULE 45 OF IT RULES WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT EVERY APPE AL SHALL BE FILED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAD F ILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY AND WAS REQUIRED TO E-FILE IN ACCOR DANCE WITH RULE 45 OF IT RULES FOR THE EXTENDED PERIOD I.E. 15 .06.2016. SINCE, THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED MANUALLY, IT IS D EFECTIVE APPEAL WHICH IS NON- MAINTAINABLE AND IS BEING FILED. THE E-APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN UP SEPARATELY FOR ADJUDICATION WHENEVER IT IS FILED AS PER LAW AND EXISTING INSTRUCTION IN FORCE. 4. THUS, THIS APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE AND NON-MAINTAIN ABLE AND IS BEING FILED/DISMISSED. THUS, NO ADJUDICATION ON MER IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BEING MANUALLY FILED AND HENCE IN ADMISSIBLE AB-INITIO. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK COGNIZAN CE OF THE APPEAL FILED MANUALLY THOUGH IT WAS DEFECTIVE. ONCE THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE BECAUSE NON COMPLIAN CE OF RULE 45 OF THE IT RULES, THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO AL LOW THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEAL THROUGH E-FILING AND THEN, THE APPE AL SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS. THUS , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE W ITHOUT EVEN ISSUING ANY NOTICE OR RAISING SUCH A QUESTION OF MA INTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONS EQUENTLY NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBU NAL IN CASE OF M/S ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS VS. ITO ( SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE REQUIREMENT OF E-FILING HAS HELD IN PARA 6 AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS 7 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FROM THE RECORDS WE NOTICED THAT ELECTRONICALLY FILING OF THE APPEALS W AS INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME VIDE RULE 45 OF I.T. RULES 1962, MANDATING COMPULSORY E-FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE COM MISSIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST MARCH 2016. WE NOTICED THAT IN THIS RESPECT, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT IN ANY OF THE P ROVISIONS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW I.E I.T. ACT, 1961. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMEN T IN THE ABOVE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A) IN PAPER FORM AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF I. T. ACT 1961 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. BUT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HA D NOT FILED APPEAL THROUGH ELECTRONIC FORM, WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER I.T. RULES 1962. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FACTUAL POSITION , WE FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF PUNJ AB VS.SHYAMALALMURARI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1976 (SC) 1177 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT GO ST RICTLY BY THE RULEBOOK TO DENY JUSTICE TO THE DESERVING LITIGANT AS IT WOULD LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IT HAS BEEN REITERA TED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT ALL THE RULES OF PROCEDU RE ARE HANDMAID OF JUSTICE. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE D RAFTSMAN OF PROCEDURAL LAW MAY BE LIBERAL OR STRINGENT, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE OBJECT OF PRESCRIBING PROCEDURE IS TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS SAID IN AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, NO PARTY SHOULD ORDINARILY BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY O F PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE DISPENSATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT REPORTED AS AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 IN THE CASE OF RANIKUSUMVRS. KANCHA N DEVI, REITERATED THAT, A PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD NOT ORDINA RILY BE CONSTRUED AS MANDATORY, AS IT IS ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO AND IS IN AID OF JUSTICE. ANY INTERPRETATION, WHICH ELUDES OR FRUSTRATES THE RECIPIENT OF JUSTICE, IS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE GATHERED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE APPEAL IN PAPER FORM , HOWEVER ONLY THE E-FILING OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY TH E ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING TO US, THE SAME IS ONLY A TECHNICAL C ONSIDERATION. 8 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. IN THIS RESPECT, WE RELY UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS REITER ATED THAT IF IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATI ON AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERV ES TO BE PREFERRED AND CANNOT BE OVERSHADOWED OR NEGATIVED B Y SUCH TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. APART FROM ABOVE WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN APPEAL ITA NO. 6595/DEL/16 IN CASE TITLED GURINDER SINGH DHILLON V RS. ITO HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH A DIRECTION DO DECIDE APPEAL AFR ESH ON MERIT, AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, IF ANY. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT APPEAL IN T HE PAPER FORM WAS ALREADY WITH LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE IN THAT EVEN TUALITY THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL S OLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL E LECTRONICALLY 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 C ASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) & ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL. WHILE SEEKING THE COMPLIANCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IN CASE, THE DIRECTIONS ARE FOLLOWED TH EN IN THAT EVENTUALITY, THE DELAY IN E-FILING THE APPEAL SHALL STAND CONDONED. LD. CIT(A) IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO CONSIDE R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY PASSING A SPEAKI NG ORDER. RESULTANTLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND TH E MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSE SSEE TO E-FILE THE APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN AP PROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PASSING A FRESH ORDER. 9 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS WITHOUT EVEN GIVING AN OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. THE MATTERS ARE REMANDED TO THE RECORD OF CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE APPEA LS ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AND THE LD. CIT (A) THEN DECIDE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 5. SINCE WE HAVE ADJUDICATED GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 BY R EMANDING THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEALS ELECTRONICALLY AND THEN THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DECID E THE APPEALS ON MERITS, GROUND NOS. 4 TO 7 HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME AR E DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/01/2 019. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 24/01/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LT D., BIKANER. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAI PUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178 , 1179 & 1180/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 10 ITA NOS. 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179 & 1180/ JP/2018. M/S. BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER.