M/s. XL Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5805/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8694 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH DUBEY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.5805/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 012-13) M/S XL LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. 430-31, DLF TOWER, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 015. PAN-AAACX 0157E VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI RAMESH GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 24.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.03.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST OR DER DATED 06.09.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, NEW DELHI {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13. 2 ITA NO.5805 /DE L/2016 M/S XL LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2.0 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS TREATED AS NON- EST AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE AP PEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL IN MANUA L FORM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL HAD TO BE FILED MANUAL LY ON 08.03.2016 DUE TO SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES IN THE E-FI LING WEBSITE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THAT ONCE THE APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED MANUALLY, NO INTIMATION WAS EVER RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE APPEAL TO BE SUBMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS CAS E BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY, IT WAS REQUIRED THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY IN TERMS OF AMENDED RULE-45 R.W. RULE 12(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, SPECIALLY WHEN THE CBDT HAD EXTENDED 3 ITA NO.5805 /DE L/2016 M/S XL LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF E-APPEALS TO 15.06.201 6 VIDE CIRCULAR NO.20/2016 DATED 26.05.2016. THE LD. SR. DR SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APP EAL IN LIMINE . 3.0 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, IT IS OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT, ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM W.E.F., 01.03.2016, IT IS UNDISPU TED THAT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME THERE WERE SOME TECHNICAL GLITCHES IN THE E-FILING WEBSITE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DUE TO WHICH TH E CBDT SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF E-APPEALS TO 15.06.2016. THUS, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED E ARLIER TO FILE THE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT COULD NOT DO SO DUE T O THE TECHNICAL ISSUES INVOLVED. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PUT TO A DISADVANTAGE AND, THEREFORE, FOR THE REASON OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ASSE SSEES APPEAL FILED IN THE MANUAL FORM FOR REGULAR HEARING AND, THEREAF TER, PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. 4 ITA NO.5805 /DE L/2016 M/S XL LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 4.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON C ONCLUSION OF VIRTUAL HEARING ON 24 TH MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24/03/2021 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI