Gurinder Singh Dhillon, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6595/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3510 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR SHARMA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK THAKKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JM ITA NO.6595/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI GURINDER SINGH DHILLON, 115, YASHWANT PLACE, CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI 110 021. PAN NO.AAMPD1515D VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15 (4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK THAKKAR, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2017 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - 5, DELHI. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L :- THE ACTION OF THE CIT (A) 5 FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AS ORIGINAL PAPER APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED DUE WITHIN TIME AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT ALONG WITH ALL THE REQUIRED ITA NO.6595/DEL/2016 2 COMPLIANCES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN ON NOTE BY THE CIT (A) 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONLINE APPEAL AT A SUBSEQUENT DATE ALSO IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE CBDT NOTIFICATION NO.SO 637(E) [NO.11 / 2016 (F.NO.149/150/2015- TPL)], 2016. THE APPEAL FILED WITH CIT (A) 5 SHOULD BE RESTORED. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE EX-PARTE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.03.2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.11,02,557/-. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 07.03 .2016 AT AN INCOME OF RS.13,02,557/- BY MAKING A DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.2,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE I N LIMINE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS U NDER :- ITA NO.6595/DEL/2016 3 3.5 TO SUM UP, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ONLY IN ELECTRONIC FORM LATEST BY 15.06.2016. HOWEVER, THE PRESENT APPEAL / COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED MANUALLY IN THIS OFFICE IS A PAPER APPEAL AND THUS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AFORESTATED RULES. I HAVE BESTOWED MY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE MATTER AND AM OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS MANDATORY REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN THE EXTENDED PERIOD TILL 15/6/2016, BUT HAS FAILED TO DO, THE APPEAL CANNOT BE TREATED AS FILLED AS PER THE MANDATES OF THE ACT / RULES AND THERE BEING NO OTHER WAY BY WHICH THE DEFECT COULD BE REMOVED OTHER THAN BY FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY (AS PER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS), THE PAPER APPEAL IS TO BE TREATED AS NON-EST AND THE APPEAL IS TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY ON 08.10.2016, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED, IN THE PRIORITY OF DISPOSAL OF APPEAL AS PER CBDT PARAMETERS, AND HAVING DUE REGARD TO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION FOR FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY CAME INTO FORCE ONLY IN THIS YEAR AND BEFORE THAT THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED MANUALLY WHICH THE ASSESSEE FI LED ON 18.04.2016 WELL IN TIME AS PER THE OLD PROVISION AN D LATER ON, THE APPEAL WAS ALSO FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 08. 10.2016 ITA NO.6595/DEL/2016 4 BUT THE LD. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY AS WELL AS ELECTRONICALLY, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE APPEAL AS NON EST AND DISMISSING THE SAME IN LIMINE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) MANUALLY WI THIN TIME AS PER THE OLD PROVISIONS. LATER ON, THE MANNER OF FURNISHING THE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS AMENDED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.5/2016 DATED 06.04 .2016 AND THE PROCEDURE WAS LAID DOWN. THEREAFTER, THE C BDT EXTENDED THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONI CALLY TO 15.06.2016 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL ELECTR ONICALLY ON 08.10.2016. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EARLIER AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MANUALLY ON 18.04.2016 WAS WELL WIT HIN TIME. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS, DIRECT THE LD. CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, IF ANY, IN FIL ING THE ITA NO.6595/DEL/2016 5 APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY SINCE IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR W HEN THE PROVISIONS FOR FILING THE APPEAL WERE CHANGED AND I T WAS DIRECTED TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY, THE HARDSHIP FACED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH IS MENTIONED IN PARA 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT TH E DELAY WAS OCCASIONED DUE TO TECHNICAL ISSUE AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE DULY INTRODUCED E-FILING PR OCEDURE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER CONDONING TH E DELAY, IF ANY, BY PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/04/2017 ) SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 19 /04/2017 TS ITA NO.6595/DEL/2016 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR