G.SHANTHINI, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1441/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9173 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI , . , [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] !' ./I.T.A. NO.1441/CHNY/2019. #$% &$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. G. SHANTHINI, PLOT NO.230/231,DOOR NO.29, FIRST CROSS STREET, NATESA NAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 092. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(1) CHENNAI [PAN BFYPS 1008C] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !' '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT. # - ) . /DATE OF HEARING : 05-12-2019 /0&% ) . /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-12-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-9, CHENNAI ITA NO.1441 /2019 :- 2 -: (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 11.04.2019 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-2014. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE AY 2013-2014 WAS FILED ON 24.02.2014 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF A5,49,210/-. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORAT E WARD 8(1), CHENNAI VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) ACCEPTI NG THE RETURNED INCOME BY LEVYING INTEREST U/S.234C OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) MANU ALLY ON 24.04.2016. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED UPON THE ASSE SSEE AS TO WHY THE APPEAL CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW AS APPEAL WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 4 5 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.08.201 6. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY ON 02.09.2 016. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 123 DAYS, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FOR DELAY DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. ITA NO.1441 /2019 :- 3 -: 4. .. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APP EAL. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE APPEAL WAS FILED MANUALLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND BASED ON THE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.08.2016, ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL ELE CTRONICALLY ON 02.09.2016. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ADJUDICATING TH E APPEAL ON MERITS, DISMISSED THE SAME ON LIMINE WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E MERITS OF THE ASSESSMENT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE APPEAL WAS FILED MANUALLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. NO DOUBT INCOME TAX R ULES PRESCRIBES THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD BE FILE D ELECTRONICALLY. IT IS MATTER OF RECORD THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE A PPEAL, THE DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT ON 17.08.2016 AND IMMEDIATELY, THER EAFTER ASSESSEE HAD FIELD APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY IN TERMS OF RULE 45 . THE RIGHT OF APPEAL IS AN SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT. THE FORM OF FILING OF AP PEAL, PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FALLS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF LAW OF PROCE DURE. THE LAW OF PROCEDURE HAS TO BE APPROACHED, UNDERSTOOD AND APPR ECIATED AS A HELPMATE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTR ATION OF JUSTICE. ITA NO.1441 /2019 :- 4 -: PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO SUBSERVE THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND NOT TO HINDER IT. IT IS NOW W ELL-SETTLED THAT A PROCEDURAL PROVISION, ORDINARILY, SHOULD NOT BE CON STRUED AS MANDATORY, IF THE DEFECT IN THE ACT DONE IN PURSUAN CE OF IT CAN BE CURED BY PERMITTING APPROPRIATE RECTIFICATION TO BE CARRIED OUT AT A SUBSEQUENT STAGE. PROCEDURAL LAWS ARE DEVISED AND E NACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING JUSTICE. REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARDEODAS AGARWALLA TRUST, (1992) 198 ITR 511. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE APPEAL WAS FILED MANUALLY, LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN C OGNIZANCE OF APPEAL MEMO, WHEN REQUIRED BY LD. CIT(A) TO FILE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY, IT WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , APPEAL RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL MANUALLY. THU S, THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSMENTS. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1441 /2019 :- 5 -: 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ' # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 #- / CHENNAI 2# / DATED:10TH DECEMBER, 2019. KV 3 ) +.4 5' !6 5&. / COPY TO: 1 . !' '( / APPELLANT 3. 7. (!' ) / CIT(A) 5. 5 :; +.#< / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. 7. / CIT 6. ;$ =- / GF