TATA SONS LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 235/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7483 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R MANJUNATHA SWAMY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 115JB; 143(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S . RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM ./ I.T.A. NO . 235 / MUM/ 2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) TATA SONS LTD BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODY STREET, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 / VS. D CIT - 1(3 ), ROOM NO. 552, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN NO. AA ACT 4060 A ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. AARTI VISSANJI , AR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI R. MANJUNATHA SWAMY , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.01.2020 / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5 8 IN SHORT REFERRED AS LD. CIT(A) , MUMBAI, DATED 31.10 .18 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR (IN SHORT A Y ) 2013 - 14 . 2 I.T.A. NO. 235 /MUM/201 9 TATA SONS LTD 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/11 /2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND S UBSEQUENTLY E - FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.03.15, DECLARING CURRENT YEAR INCOME OF RS. 51,37,61,780/ - UNDER NORMAL PROVISION AND RS. 22,05,27,770/ - UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND SAME WAS MANUALLY SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RELEVANT INF ORMATION AS CALLED FOR. AFTER VERIFYING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AO MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES . 3. AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF AO , ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL MANUALLY, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE AP PEAL ELECTRONICALLY WHICH IS MANDATORY . ASSESSEE FILED E - APPEAL SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE RE IS ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AS NEITHER THERE IS PROPER PETITION 3 I.T.A. NO. 235 /MUM/201 9 TATA SONS LTD FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY NOR IS THERE SUFFICIENT CAUSE ESTABLISHED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE T HE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE RE IS ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AS NEITHER THERE IS PROPER PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY NOR IS THERE SUFFICIENT CAUSE ESTABLISHED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. H OWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MANUAL APPEAL WAS FILED ON TIME. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ELECTRONICALLY NOT MANUALLY. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO F ILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY. BUT, LD. CIT(A) 4 I.T.A. NO. 235 /MUM/201 9 TATA SONS LTD HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE RE IS ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AS NEITHER THERE IS PROPER PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY NOR IS THERE SUFFICIENT CAUSE ESTABLISHED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 8. FROM THE RECORDS WE NOTICED THAT ELECTRO NICALLY FILING OF THE APPEALS WAS INT RODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME VIDE RULE 45 OF I.T. RULES 1962 , MANDATING COMPULSORY E - FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST MARCH 2016. WE NOTICED THAT IN THIS RESPECT, THE RE IS NO CORRESPONDI NG AMENDMENT IN ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW I.E I.T. ACT, 1961. 9. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED, WE FIND THAT H ON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHYAMALA LMURARI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AI R 1976 (SC) 1177 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT GO STRICTLY BY THE RULEBOOK TO DENY JUSTICE TO THE DESERVING LITIGANT AS IT WOULD LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE H ON BLE SUPREME COURT THAT ALL THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE HANDMA I D OF JUSTICE. THE L ANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE DRAF TSMAN OF PROCEDURAL LAW MAY BE LIBERAL OR 5 I.T.A. NO. 235 /MUM/201 9 TATA SONS LTD STRINGENT, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE OBJECT OF PRESCRIBING PROCEDURE IS TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 10. THE HO N BLE APEX C OURT HAS SAID IN AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, NO PARTY SHOULD ORDINARILY BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY OF PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE DISPENSATION. 11. THE H ON BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT REPORTED AS AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 IN THE CASE OF RANI KUSUM VRS. KANCHAN DEVI, REITERATED T HAT, A PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE CONSTRUED AS MANDATORY, AS IT IS ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO AND IS IN AID OF JUSTIC E. ANY INTERPRETATION, WHICH EL UDES OR FRUSTRATES THE RECIPIENT OF JUSTICE, IS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED. 12. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE , WE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE APPEAL IN PAPER FORM, HOWEVER ONLY THE E - FILING OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING TO US , THE SAME IS ONLY A TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION. IN THIS RESPECT , WE RELY UPON THE JUDGE MENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT HAS REITERATED THAT IF IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION AND 6 I.T.A. NO. 235 /MUM/201 9 TATA SONS LTD SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER , THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE D ESERVES TO BE P REFERRED AND CANNOT BE OVERSHADOWED OR NEGATIVED BY SUCH TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION S . 13. APART FROM ABOVE WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN APPEAL ITA NO. 6595/DEL/16 IN CASE TITLED GURINDER SINGH DHILLON VRS. ITO HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH A DIRECTION DO DECIDE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT, AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, IF ANY. 14 SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE , WE FIND THAT APPEAL IN THE PAPER FORM WAS ALREADY WITH LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN THE TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. 15. KEEPING IN VI EW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED AND RELIED UPON, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IN CASE WE SET 7 I.T.A. NO. 235 /MUM/201 9 TATA SONS LTD ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) . THEREFORE, WE REMIT THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY AND MATTER TO BE HEARD ON MERITS AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 16 . IN THE NET RESUL T THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JAN 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( C. N. PRASAD ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 29 . 01.2020 SR.PS . DHANANJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBA I