Prakashwati Educational Society, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-2(1), New Delhi

ITA 1639/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Prakashwati Educational Society appealing against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-40, which pertained to the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the rejection of the condonation of delay for an appeal that was initially filed manually and later electronically. The CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal as non est because it was filed manually, despite it being within the time limit. The assessee argued that the manual filing was due to ignorance of the new electronic filing requirement, which was the first year of its implementation. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument of reasonable ignorance and directed the CIT (A) to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113903 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1639/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Prakashwati Educational Society, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (1), KH.No.65, Jharoda Mazra, Burari, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 084. (PAN : AAATP1266B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Gunjan Sharma, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.04.2023 Date of Order : 19.04.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-40, Delhi dated 09.06.2022 pertaining to AY 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following various grounds of appeal:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in rejecting the condonation of delay which is against the principle of natural justice, injudicious and bad at law. 2. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee which is injudicious, unwarranted and bad at law. 3. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Authority and upheld by Ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in ITA No.1639/Del./2022 2 assessing the total receipts amounting to Rs.52,80,837/- as taxable income of the assessee which is grossly injudicious, unwarranted and bad at law. 4. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Authority and upheld by ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in disallowing the entire expenses / application of funds claimed during the year under consideration.” 3. In this case, pursuant to the AO’s order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee has filed manual appeal within the time limit. However, ld. CIT (A) had dismissed the same treating the same as non est as appeal was filed manually and not electronically. Assessee stated that the said order was not served upon the assessee and the assessee came to know about the same when it approached the CIT (A) office on 12.01.2018 to ascertain the status of the appeal. After that, assessee filed the instant appeal electronically on 01.02.2018. It was further submitted that appellate order was served on the assessee on 15.01.2018 and hence, assessee filed the appeal electronically on 01.02.2018. Hence, it was pleaded that there was sufficient cause for filing the appeal electronically within the time as assessee has done. However, Ld. CIT (A) was not convinced. After elaborately discussing the issue, he did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. ITA No.1639/Del./2022 3 5. We note that it is not denied that manual appeal was filed within time. Subsequently, electronically appeal was filed after assessee came to know that its earlier appeal has been dismissed on account of having been filed manually. We find that this was the first year of implementation of filing of appeal electronically, so assessee’s failure to file the appeal electronically on time initially can be said to be due to reasonable ignorance. However, subsequently assessee had filed appeal electronically which was dismissed by not condoning the delay. In our considered view, interest of justice will be served if the issue is remitted to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to admit the appeal which was filed electronically and pass an order as per law. Needless to add, the delay be condoned by the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19 th day of April, 2023. Sd/- sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 19 th day of April, 2023 TS ITA No.1639/Del./2022 4 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-40, Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.