, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.280/CHNY/2019 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. SHRUTHI RATHOD, 4/234-B, MGR ROAD, 7 TH STREET, PALAVAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 041. PAN : ANKPR 0306 D V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 6(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : MS.A. SUSHMA HARINI, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2019 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.05.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -15, CHENN AI, DATED 31.12.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. NO.280/CHNY/19 2. MS. A. SUSHMA HARINI, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL MANUAL LY ON 25.04.2016. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED APPEAL ON-LINE ON 22.12.2018. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUN D THAT THE APPEAL HAS TO BE E-FILED MANDATORILY WITH EFFECT FR OM 01.03.2016. ACCORDINGLY, HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 2- 1/2 YEARS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WITHOUT GO ING INTO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL, THE SAME WAS REJECTED IN LIMINE . 3. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF LAW TO E-FILE THE APPEAL WITH EFFECT FROM 01.03.2016. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ONLY ON 22.12.2018 , THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 2-1/2 YEARS. SINCE THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE SAME WAS REJECTED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THE APPEAL WAS MANUA LLY FILED ON 25.04.2016. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED OR THE APPEAL WAS RETURNED. WHEN THE AP PEAL WAS FILED 3 I.T.A. NO.280/CHNY/19 BY THE ASSESSEE MANUALLY, IF IT IS NOT IN TUNE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, IT IS FOR THE CIT(APPEALS) EITHER TO I SSUE A DEFECT MEMO OR TO RETURN THE APPEAL FILED MANUALLY, TO THE ASSE SSEE. ADMITTEDLY, NO SUCH ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE APPEAL WAS E- FILED ON 22.12.2018. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY ON 25.04.2016 AND ALSO E-FILED ON 22.12.2018, THE A SSESSEES E- FILING OF APPEAL WOULD RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DATE OF FILING APPEAL MANUALLY ON 25.04.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS N O DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IF E-FILING OF APPEAL ON 22.12.2018 RE LATES BACK TO MANUAL FILING OF APPEAL ON 25.04.2016, THERE IS NO DELAY AT ALL. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHO LD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL CONSID ER THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND DISPOSE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4 I.T.A. NO.280/CHNY/19 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH MAY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESA N) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 17 TH MAY, 2019. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-15, CHENNAI 4. CIT-6, CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.