Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani (Prop. of M/s. Kewalram Naraindas), Ahmedabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1571/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4172 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEELIPKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN KUMAR SAHU
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 271E

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI , MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 { / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI PROP. OF M/S. KEWALRAM NARAINDAS 3 RD FLOOR, MANILAL MANSION, OPP. SHRIRAM CLOTH MARKET, RAILWAYPURA, AHMEDABAD-380001 PAN NO.ACFPC3208D VS A CIT, RANGE 1( 2 ) AHMEDABAD ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (REVENUE) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR SAHU , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DEELIP KUMAR SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/02/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/02/2020 $%/ O R D E R PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, A.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD DATED 25.04.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHICH IS ARIS ING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FRAMED ON 11.02.2016 BY DCIT, CENTRAL-1(2), AHMEDABAD. ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI FOR AY 2012-13 2 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL REJECTING APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND WITHOUT LOOKING INTO T HE MERITS OF THE CASE RELATED TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 2 71E OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFE RRING TO THE DETAILS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER DATE D 11.02.2016 THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL MANUALLY ON FORM NO.35 ON 04.04.2016 WHICH WAS WELL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY BUT DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY HE COULD NOT FILE IT ON TIME. FINALLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY ON 19.01.2018. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WERE NEW AND THEY WERE TECHNICAL ISSUES WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY ON TIME. HOWE VER, ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI FOR AY 2012-13 3 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONE D AS THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: I. RANI KUSUM VS. KANCHAN DEVI, AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 II. STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHYAMALAL MURARI AND OTHERS IN AIR 1976 (SC) 1177 III. ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS VS. ITO (ITAT, MUMBAI) 4. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS REFERRED AND RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THA T THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY THEREBY NOT DECIDING THE ISSU E ON ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI FOR AY 2012-13 4 MERITS. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WIT H PENALTY ORDER DATED 11.02.2016 AND HE FILED THE APP EAL MANUALLY ON FORM NO.35 ON 04.04.2016. HOWEVER, DUE TO CHANGE IN THE RULES OF FILING APPEAL HE WAS REQU IRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY. THE APPEAL WAS F INALLY FILED ON 19.01.2018, THUS THERE OCCURRED DELAY. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY. 6. WE, HOWEVER, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMI T AND ELECTRONICALLY FEATURE WHICH WAS STARTED AT THA T POINT OF TIME PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TECHO- FRIENDLY. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO INTENTIONAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI FOR AY 2012-13 5 7. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RANI KUSUM VS. KANCHAN DEVI, AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 , REITERATED THAT, A PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE CONSTRUED AS MANDATORY , AS IT IS ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO AND IS IN AID OF JUS TICE. ANY INTERPRETATION, WHICH ELUDES OR FRUSTRATES THE RECIPIENT OF JUSTICE, IS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED AND IN THE CASE OF STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHYAMALAL MURARI AND OTHERS IN AIR 1976 (SC) 1177 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT GO STRICTLY BY THE RULEBOOK TO DENY JUST ICE TO THE DESERVING LITIGANT AS IT WOULD LEAD TO MISCARRI AGE OF JUSTICE. IT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT THAT ALL THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE HANDMAID OF JUSTICE. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE DRAFTSMAN 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 AND IN THE CASE OF ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS VS. ITO . ITAT, MUMBAI, ITAT FINDS THAT APPEAL IN THE PAPER FORM WAS ALREAD Y WITH LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL SOLEL Y ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPE AL ELECTRONICALLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. I TAT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW ASSESS EES ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI FOR AY 2012-13 6 APPEAL ON THE VIEW THAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IN THE CASE. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDGMENTS AND THE GIVEN FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MER ITS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THUS, THE SOLE GRIEVAN CE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 .02.2020. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27 /02/2020 PATEL, PS $% & ''() *$)' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A)- XV, AHMEDABAD 5. $%& '' , , )*++ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,- . / GUARD FILE. ITA NO.1571/AHD/2018 CHETANDAS KEWALRAM KARAMCHANDANI FOR AY 2012-13 7 $% + / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ,/ - ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD