M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 456/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6387 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROLI AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: L N MALIK
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HERITAGE CITY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.), OFFICE NO. 616, TOWER A-1, NORTH BLOCK WORLD TRADE PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCH 7581 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH KHOSLA (ADV.) & SHRI L.N. MALIK (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROLI AGARWAL (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/07/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 OF LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCI PLES OF JUSTICE. ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 2 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 352 DAYS IN FILIN G OF APPEAL IGNORING THE FACT THAT IT WAS MANUALLY FILED ON 17. 10.2016 BY SPEED POST, WHICH WAS WELL WITHIN TIME FROM THE DAT E OF SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED, THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FILED ELECTRON ICALLY. RATHER IT WAS ACTED UPON AS NOTICE OF HEARING WAS I SSUED ON 04.10.2017. 4. THAT NO COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFI CE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE M ANUALLY FILED APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE. HOWEVER, AROUND SEPTEMBE R, 2017, A TELEPHONIC MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT POINTING THAT HE IS INSTRUCTED TO SAY THAT THE APPEAL IS TO BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY. 4.1 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OU GHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE MESSAGE, APPEAL WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 06.10.2 017. 5. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) THAT WHEN THE MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING ON VARIOUS DATES MENTIONED IN PARA 3 OF ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (EXCEPT NOTICE FIXING HEARING FOR 16.11.2017), NONE APPEARED. IT IS DENIE D THAT ANY NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT OR ANYBODY AUT HORIZED BY HIM OR BY ITS COUNSEL OR HE WAS AWARE OF SUCH DATES OF HEARING. . 5.1 THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE APPEAL MANUALLY FILED, TH E APPELLANT GAVE THREE ADDRESSES, AT WHICH THE NOTICES MAY BE S ENT. THIS ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 3 FACT HAS EVEN BEEN SHOWN IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THAT THREE ADDRESSES WERE GIVEN. 5.2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE COUNSEL WA S AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHEN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED AND I NSPITE OF THAT NO NOTICE WAS EVER SENT AT THIS ADDRESS. 5.3 THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RU LE 11 OF THE I.T. A.T. RULES FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APP EAL WHICH IS AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 14.09.2016 U/S 147/143( 3)/R.W.S. 153(4) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S. 1 43(3) AS WELL AS SECTION 153(4) OF THE ACT ON 14.09.2016. THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN APPEAL (MANUALLY) AND THEREAFTER THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED ELECTRONICALLY ON 06.10.2017. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE E FILING OF APPEAL IS BARRED BY LI MITATION. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL (MANUALLY) AND SEND THE SA ME VIDE SPEED POST DATED 17.10.2016 WHICH WAS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD O F LIMITATION. THE LD. ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 4 CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICES BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE A PPEAL FILED MANUALLY HOWEVER, THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE APPEAL THROUGH E-FILING WHICH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE 10.10.2017 . THUS, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE E-FILING OF APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (MANUAL LY) DATED 17.10.2016 AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMMIT TED AN ERROR BY HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BA RRED BY LIMITATION. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR WHEN THE E-FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN INTRODUCED VI DE RULE 45 OF I.T RULES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING DECISION DATED 04.05.2018 MUMBA I BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 7134/MUM/2017 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE CO NSTRUED AS MANDATORY, AS IT IS ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO AND IS IN AID OF JUSTICE. HENCE, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE MANUALLY AS WELL AS ELECTRONICALLY BE TREATED WITHIN THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION AND THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE D TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR E- ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 5 FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) W.E.F. 01.03 .2016 AS PER RULE 45 OF THE I.T. RULES THOUGH THE TIME PERIOD WAS FURTHE R EXTENDED UPTO 15.05.2016 AND THEREAFTER 15.06.2016 BY THE BOARD VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016 DATED 26.05.2016. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT THE MANUAL APPEAL WAS NOT A VALID APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE LIMITATION HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY WHEN THE ASSESS EE E- FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY DE LAYED ABOUT ONE YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ADMITTED FOR AD JUDICATION ON MERITS. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A). THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE APPEAL FILED MA NUALLY WAS DELAYED BY ONE DAY IF IT IS COUNTED FROM THE SERVICE OF ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- THIS APPEAL IS INSTITUTED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) R.W.S. 153(4) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-7(2 ), JAIPUR. 2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN E-FILED ON 06.10.2017 AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 147/143(3) OF IT ACT DATED 14.09.2016. IN THE F ORM NO. 35 THE DATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER IS STATED TO BE 19.09. 2016. AS PER THE ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 6 SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER / DEMAND NOTICE DAT ED 19.09.2016, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BY 19.10.201 6 WHEREAS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS E-FILED ON 06.10.2017 I.E. DE LAYED BY 352 DAYS. 3. THE HEARINGS IN THIS CASE WAS INITIALLY FIXED FO R 04.10.2017, BUT ON THE APPOINTED DATE NEITHER APPELLANT ATTEND NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THE NOTICE AGAIN ISSUED FIXING FOR HEARING ON 17.10.2017, BUT ON THE APPOINTED DATE NEITHER AP PELLANT ATTEND NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THE NOTICE AGAIN ISSUED FIXING FOR HEARING ON 30.10.2017, BUT ON THE APPOIN TED DATE NEITHER APPELLANT ATTEND NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THE NOTICE AGAIN ISSUED FIXING FOR HEARING ON 16.11.201 7. ON THAT DATED A/R OF THE APPELLANT ADJOURNMENT LETTER SEND BY POST. THE NOTICE AGAIN ISSUED FIXING FOR HEARING ON 04.12 .2017, BUT ON THE APPOINTED DATE NEITHER APPELLANT ATTEND NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THE NOTICE AGAIN ISSUED FIXING FOR HEARING ON 20.12.2017, BUT ON THE APPOINTED DATE NEITHER AP PELLANT ATTEND NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THE NOTICE AGAIN ISSUED FIXING FOR HEARING ON 29.01.2018, BUT ON THE APPOIN TED DATE NEITHER APPELLANT ATTEND NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT DO ES NOT MADE ANY APPLICATION FOR DELAY OF CONDONATIN OF APPEAL A T THE TIME OF FILING APPEAL. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT NEITHER ATT ENDED NOR FILED ANY REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON VARIOUS DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. IT SHOW THAT APPELLANT IS NOT SE RIOUS ABOUT THE APPEAL. THEREFORE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE AD MISSION STAGE. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERE D E-FILING OF APPEAL ON 10.10.2017 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.09 .2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH , THE LD. DR PRODUCED ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 7 THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE US. WE FIND THA T ORIGINALLY THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (MANUALLY) AND SENT THROU GH SPEED POST DATED 17.10.2016 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AND REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON 20.10.2016. THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK COGNI ZANCE OF THE APPEAL FILED MANUALLY AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.09.2017. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL THROUGH E-F ILED ON 06.10.2017. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE MANUAL LY FILED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DULLY RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD . CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. HOWEVE R, WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL THROUGH E-FILING ON 06.10 .2017, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATIO N. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ONCE THE APPEAL WAS DULY FILED MANUALLY O N 20.10.2016 AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) THEN, EVE N IF THE SAID APPEAL FILED MANUALLY WAS A DEFECTIVE APPEAL AS NOT FILED AS PER THE PROCEDURAL PROVIDED UNDER RULE 45 OF INCOME TAX RULES THE PROP ER COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO ISSUE A DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFYING THE SAID DEFECT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE APPEAL THROUGH E-FILED ON 01.10.2017. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECTIFIED THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL FILED O N 20.10.2016 THEN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY WOULD S UBSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 8 APPEAL FILED MANUALLY. THE DATE OF FILING OF THE AP PEAL WOULD BE ORIGINAL DATE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL (MANUAL LY) AND THE SUBSEQUENT E-FILING WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY REMOVAL ON DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL. HENCE, THE LIMITATION HAS TO BE CO UNTED FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL APPEAL FILED ON 20.10.2016. THE LD. CIT (A) DULY TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID APPEAL BY DISMISSING NOTICE DATED 19.09.2017 AND ONLY THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL T HROUGH E-FILING. EVEN OTHERWISE THE PROCEDURAL DEFECT WHICH WAS RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A GROUND FOR DISMISSING THE APPE AL IN LIMINE. THE MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S ALL I NDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE REQUIREMENT OF E-FILING HAS HELD IN PARA 6 AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FROM THE RECORDS WE NOTICED THAT ELECTRONICALLY FILING OF THE APPEALS WAS INTRO DUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME VIDE RULE 45 OF I.T. RULES 1962, MANDATING COM PULSORY E- FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER WIT H EFFECT FROM 1 ST MARCH 2016. WE NOTICED THAT IN THIS RESPECT, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT IN ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW I.E I.T. ACT, 1961. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMEN T IN THE ABOVE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN PAPE R FORM AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT 1961 WI THIN THE ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 9 PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. BUT THE SAME WAS D ISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED A PPEAL THROUGH ELECTRONIC FORM, WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER I.T. RUL ES 1962. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FACTUAL POSITION , WE FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF PUNJ AB VS.SHYAMALALMURARI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1976 (SC) 1177 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT GO ST RICTLY BY THE RULEBOOK TO DENY JUSTICE TO THE DESERVING LITIGANT AS IT WOULD LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IT HAS BEEN REITERATED B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT ALL THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE H ANDMAID OF JUSTICE. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE DRAFTSMAN OF PROCEDURAL LAW MAY BE LIBERAL OR STRINGENT, BUT THE FACT REMAI NS THAT THE OBJECT OF PRESCRIBING PROCEDURE IS TO ADVANCE THE C AUSE OF JUSTICE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS SAID IN AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, NO PARTY SHOULD ORDINARILY BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY O F PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE DISPENSATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT REPORTED AS AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 IN THE CASE OF RANIKUSUMVRS. KANCHA N DEVI, REITERATED THAT, A PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD NOT ORDINA RILY BE CONSTRUED AS MANDATORY, AS IT IS ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO AND IS IN AID OF JUSTICE. ANY INTERPRETATION, WHICH ELUDES OR FRUSTRATES THE RECIPIENT OF JUSTICE, IS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE GATHERED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE APPEAL IN PAPER FORM , HOWEVER ONLY THE E-FILING OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY TH E ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING TO US, THE SAME IS ONLY A TECHNICAL CONSI DERATION. IN THIS RESPECT, WE RELY UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS REITERATED TH AT IF IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION AN D SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE CAUSEOF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRE D AND CANNOT BE OVERSHADOWED OR NEGATIVED BY SUCH TECHNICAL CONS IDERATIONS. ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 10 APART FROM ABOVE WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN APPEAL ITA NO. 6595/ DEL/16 IN CASE TITLED GURINDER SINGH DHILLON VRS. ITO HAD RES TORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) UNDER IDENTICAL CI RCUMSTANCES WITH A DIRECTION DO DECIDE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT, AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, IF ANY. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT APPEAL IN T HE PAPER FORM WAS ALREADY WITH LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPE AL SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPE AL ELECTRONICALLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED AND RELIED UPON ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IN C ASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) & ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL. WHILE SEEKING THE COMPLIANCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECE IPT OF THIS ORDER. IN CASE, THE DIRECTIONS ARE FOLLOWED THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY, THE DELAY IN E-FILING THE APPEAL SHALL STAND CONDONED. LD. CIT(A) IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. RES ULTANTLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE FIND THAT THE MANUAL APPEAL WAS SENT BY THE A SSESSEE THROUGH SPEED POST DATED 17.10.2016 WHICH WAS RECEI VED IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON 20.10.2016 AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY IF ANY IN FILING THE MANUAL APPEAL IS ONLY ONE DAY AND THAT TOO WAS BECAUSE OF THE TIME TAKEN BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY TO DELIVER THE APPEAL PAPERS SENT THROUGH SPEED POST. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF ONLY ONE DAY IN FILING TH E APPEAL WHICH WAS ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 11 DUE TO THE TIME TAKEN BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY IN DE LIVERING THE APPEAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE COND ONED THE DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACC ORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL A S THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL WE SET ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MERITS. 7. AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATUR E AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDI CATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY BE FORE PASSING A FRESH ORDER. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/07/2018 SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 16/07/2018. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 456/JP/2018 M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 12 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S ANANDA HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 456/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR