M/s. IPC Packaging Company Private Limited, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1765/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7721 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL BIJU
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA NO. 1765/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 14 M/S IPC PACKAGING COMPANY PVT. LTD., #4909, HIGH POINT IV, #45, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. PAN: AABCI8890E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 3 (1) (1), BANGALORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HREE V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : S HRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, BIJU , ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 25 . 1 1 .20 19 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 0 1.20 20 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 3 BENGALURU DATED 24.06.2019 FOR A. Y. 2013 14. 2. APART FROM OTHER GROUNDS ON MERIT, THIS IS THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 514 DAYS IN FILING OF E APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND, CIT (A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 45 OF I T RULES 1962 BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORM. HE SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THIS ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IN ITA ITA NOS.1765(B)/2019 PAGE 2 OF 3 NO. 2705/B/2017 DATED 11.04.2018, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ELECTRONIC FORM ON 11.11.2017 BE TREATED AS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) DATED 29.03.2016 AND CIT (A) WAS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARAS 4 TO 6 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING IN THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM BEFORE CIT (A) IS CONDONED BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE INFERRED BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH DIRECTION ALSO THAT THE CIT (A) SHOULD DECIDE ABOUT THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 2 OF THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER, FACTS ABOUT REASONS OF DELAY ARE DULY NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FOR THE SAME REASONS, THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER PARA 2 OF THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS NOTED THAT MANUAL APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) ON 25.04.2016 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 AND SUCH MANUAL FILING IS NOT DELAYED. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE CIT (A) ON 09.11.2017 AND IN COURSE OF SUCH HEARING, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THE CIT (A) THAT ANY APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) AND EVEN TODAY, THIS IS NOT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ELECTRONIC APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 09.11.2017. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH FORM NO. 36, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT RULE 45 OF I T RULES WAS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.03.2016 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) IN ELECTRONIC FORM BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS AMENDMENT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED IN SOF THAT THERE WAS NO CLARITY ABOUT THE MANNER OF FILING THE ELECTRONIC APPEAL AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SAID AMENDMENT. ON 09.11.2017, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY CIT (A) IN COURSE OF HEARING AND THE ELECTRONIC APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2017. IT IS ALSO STATED IN SOF THAT IT WAS INFORMED BY CIT (A) ON 09.11.2017 THAT TWO NOTICES DATED 24.08.2016 AND 26.07.2017 WERE ALSO ISSUED BY HIM IN THIS REGARD BUT THE SAME WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ITA NOS.1765(B)/2019 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF E APPEAL AND RESTORE THE MATER BACK TO CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF THIS, NO ADJUDICATION ON MERIT IS CALLED FOR AT THE PRESENT STAGE AND WE MAKE NO COMMENT ON MERIT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 29 TH JANUARY, 2020. /NS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT (A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.