M/s chandrasagar Enterprises , Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 506/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7704 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH RAO B
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Right to appeal
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 506 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 - 09 M/S. CHANDRASAGAR ENTERPRISES, NO. 39/2, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 029. PAN : A AA F C 9444 N VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. HARISH RAO B , CA REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 11 . 0 6 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 0 7 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE APPEAL AS INVALID UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. ITA NO. 506/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT E FILING OF THE APPEAL PAPERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AND HENCE, TREATING THE APPEAL AS INVALID IS OPPOSE TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS PRIED THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND NEED TO BE ANNULLED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, EVEN UNDER MERIT THE APPEAL IS TO BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, AS THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE TIME ALLOWED FOR REASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R W S 147 HAS BEEN EXPIRED AND THE ORDER PASSED IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND HENCE TO BE ANNULLED. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHEREIN THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARE TO BE FILED ONLINE IN PLACE OF PAPER FILING (MANUALLY). THE CIT(A) DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FILED PHYSICALLY AND NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE DENIED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT APPEAL WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY. THE LEARNED DR PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT APPEALS ARE TO BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES. SINCE IT WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY AS PER RULES, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT NO DOUBT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AND THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS INTRODUCED THE NEW SYSTEM OF FILING OF THE APPEALS ITA NO. 506/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 ONLINE, BUT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY ON ACCOUNT OF GLITCHES IN THE WEBSITE OR FOR OTHER REASONS, THE RIGHT TO APPEAL CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY THE APPEAL THROUGH PAPER FILING WAS FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT INSTEAD OF FINDING TECHNICAL FAULT THEREIN. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( A. K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATED: 13 TH JULY, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. DR 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.