R N SAHNI, NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 5560/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4231 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: P N MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 5560/DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2013 - 14 R. N. SAHNI, 51, PASCHIMI MARG, VASA NT VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 1100 57 VS ACIT, CIRCLE - 32(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A BJPS2875D ASSESSEE BY : SH. P. N. MEHTA, CA REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13 .12 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT : 03 .01 .201 8 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2017 OF LD. CIT(A) - 11 , NEW DELHI . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN NOT ENTERTAINING ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN FILED ELECTRONICALLY. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL IN PAPER FORM ON 08.04.2016 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) 11 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 220409. 3. THAT THE NEW RULES FOR FILING OF APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY CAME INTO FORCE ON 01.04.2016 THE APPELLANT FOR THE EXECUTION THAT THE ORDER PASSED AFTER 1 ST APRIL 2016 ARE TO BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY. ITA NO . 5560 /DEL /201 7 R N SAHNI 2 4. ON TH E FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 15,07,821/ - UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG IN NOT ALLOWING TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE A MOUNTING TO RS.33,26,450/ - AGAINST RS. 11,17,005/ - AL LOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE REJECTION OF THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUND IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME ON 26.09.2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.26,30,430/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.41,38,25 1/ - BY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,07,821/ - U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND THEN BY THE EXTENDED DATE 15.06.2016 AS PER THE CIRCULAR NO. 20 OF THE CBDT WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THEREFORE, THE MANUAL APPEAL FILED WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. HE A LSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AS PER THE ITA NO . 5560 /DEL /201 7 R N SAHNI 3 PROVISIONS OF RULE AND TO SEEK CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 08.04.2016 BY FURNISHING THE CHALLAN FOR APPELLATE FEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,000/ - ON 07.04.2016. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE APPEAL WAS WITHIN THE TIME. HOWEV ER, NEW RULE FOR FILING OF APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY CAME INTO FORCE ON 01.04.2016 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THIS IMPRESSION THAT THE SAID DATE WAS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER PASSED AFTER 01.04.2016 , UNDER THIS WRONG IMPRESSION, THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER 01.04.2016. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE CBDT SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY TILL 15.06.2016 VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016 DATED 26.05.2016. IT WAS STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMIT TED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSES SEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERIT. 6 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD . IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WAS FILED MANUALLY AND NOT ELECTRONICALLY. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM PARA 3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ITA NO . 5560 /DEL /201 7 R N SAHNI 4 ORDER THAT PR. DG IT( SYSTEMS ) VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 5/2016 DATED 06.04.2016 HAS LAID DOWN THE PROCEDURES, DATA STRUCTURE AND STANDARD OF ELECTRONIC VERIFICATION CODE (EVC) ETC. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 08.04.2016 AND THE APPELLATE FEE WAS DEPOSITED ON 07.04.2016 WHILE THE NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED BY THE PR. DGIT(SYSTEMS) VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 5/2016 DATED 06.04.2016. SO, THERE WERE CHANCES THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE KNOW N ABOUT THE AFORESAID NOT IFICATION DATED 06.04.2016. T HEREFORE, B Y CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A LIBERAL VIEW IN ADMITTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CASE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE D ECIDED ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (O RD E R P RON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03 /01 /201 8 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 03 /01/2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT A SSISTANT REGISTRAR