RAMESH KALPATHY VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI V. ACIT (CPC) - TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 5761/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5381 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SABA BAGTADI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRAS AD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN , HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A. NO S . 5754 TO 5762 /MUM/201 8 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) RAMESH KALPATHY VAIDYANATHAN OFFICE NO.1, LALANI AU R A 34 TH ROAD, BANDRA (WEST) MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400 050 PA N: ALGPK7815G V. ACIT (CPC) TDS AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR - 3, VAISHALI GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH - 201010 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SABA BAGTADI DEPARTMENT BY : SMT JOTHI LAKSHMI NAYAK DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .10 .2019 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6 0, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)] FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 DATED 11.07.2018 . 2. IN ALL THESE APPEAL S ASSESSEE HAS RAISED HIS GRIEVANCE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL S ON TECHNICAL GROUND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM BUT FILED MANUALLY. 2 ITA.NOS. 5754 TO 5762/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) RAMESH KALPATHY VAIDYANATHAN 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPEAL S IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM AND WAS FILED MANUALLY AND HENCE APPEAL S ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL S WERE FILED MANUALLY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME , AND THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL S ON TECHNICAL GROUND IS NOT JUSTIF IED . ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NON - FILING OF APPEAL S ELECTRONICALLY IS ONLY A TECHNICAL DEFECT AND THE APPEAL S CANNOT BE INVALIDATED SINCE IT IS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE A PPEAL FILED MANUALLY CANNOT BE TREATED AS INVALID SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY. (I) MEDIA NET SOFTWARE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., V. ACIT IN I TA NO. 362/MUM/2018 DATED 27.02.2019. 4. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON. IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS V. ITO IN ITA.NO. 7134/MUM/2017 AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NON - FILING OF APPEAL IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL DEFECT WHICH CAN BE CURED AND THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DISPOSAL OF APPEAL ON MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DIR ECTED TO FILE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM WITHIN TEN DAYS ON RECEIPT OF ORDER. SIMILAR 3 ITA.NOS. 5754 TO 5762/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) RAMESH KALPATHY VAIDYANATHAN VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE DECISION WHICH WAS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE RESTORE THE SE APPEAL S TO THE FILE OF T HE LD.CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO E - FILE THE AFORESAID APPEAL S WITHIN A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN ( 15 ) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER, CONSEQUENT TO WHICH DELAY IN E - FILING SHALL STAND CONDONED AND THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL DISPOSE OFF THE A PPEALS ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 16 TH OCTOBER, 20 19 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. PRADHAN ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 16 / 10 / 2019 GIRIDHAR , S R. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM