, , 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.313/CHNY/2019 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S SOUTH INDIA SHELTERS PVT. LTD., NO.14, GULMOHAR AVENUE, VELACHERY MAIN ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI - 600 032. PAN : AAJCS 9077 K V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.M. KHAJA MUYEENUDDEEN, FCA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2019 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, CHENNAI, DATED 28.12.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. SHRI S.M. KHAJA MUYEENUDDEEN, THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APP EAL MANUALLY ON 25.10.2016. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED APPEAL ON-LINE ON 12.12.2018. 2 I.T.A. NO.313/CHNY/19 ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEAL S) FOUND 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 910 DA YS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WITHOUT GOING 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 12.12.2018 , THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 910 DAYS. SINCE THERE WAS NO EXPLANATIO N FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE SAME W AS REJECTED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THE APPEAL WAS MANUA LLY FILED ON 25.10.2016. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED OR THE APPEAL WAS RETURNED. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MANUALLY, IF IT IS NOT IN TUNE WITH THE ST ATUTORY REQUIREMENT, IT IS FOR THE CIT(APPEALS) EITHER TO ISSUE A DEFECT MEMO OR TO RETURN THE APPEAL FILED MANUALLY, TO THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, NO SU CH ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE APPEAL WAS E-FILED ON 12.12. 2018. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY ON 25.10.2016 AND ALSO E- FILED ON 12.12.2018, 3 I.T.A. NO.313/CHNY/19 THE ASSESSEES E-FILING OF APPEAL WOULD RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DATE OF FILING APPEAL MANUALLY ON 25.10.2016. IN OTHER WOR DS, THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IF E-FILING OF APPEAL ON 12.12. 2018 RELATES BACK TO MANUAL FILING OF APPEAL ON 25.10.2016, THERE IS NO DELAY AT ALL. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPE AL ON MERIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND DISPOSE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH MAY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANES AN) $ / 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. 4 I.T.A. NO.313/CHNY/19