LYKA LABS LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7437/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5710 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAVLD
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEFALI GARG LD AR
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

LYKA LABS LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NOS.03/MUM/2018 & 7436 TO 7438/MUM/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 2004-05, 2010-11 & 2011- 12) LYKA LAB S LIMITED 101, SHIV SHAKTI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI(EAST) MUMBAI-400 059 VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(2)(1) MUMBAI !' # PAN/GIR NO.AAACL-0820-G ( '$ APPELLANT ) : ( %'$ RESPONDENT ) REVENUEBY : RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, LD.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHEFALI GARG, LD.AR &' DATE OF HEARING : 04/07/2018 ()*' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/07/2018 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. THE COMMON GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE ABO VE APPEALS IS THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISMI SSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUND SINCE THE APPEAL WAS FI LED MANUALLY, WHICH AS PER THE EXTANT RULE, WAS REQUIRED TO BE E-FILED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER. THE DATE OF ALL THE FOUR IMPUGNE D ORDERS IS 31/10/2017 WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY SAME APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND 2 ITA NOS.03/MUM/2018 & 7436 TO 7438/MUM/2017 LYKA LABS LIMITED THE APPELLATE ORDERS ARE SIMILARLY WORDED. AS EVIDE NT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR AY 2002-03, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS:- 5. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED . THE APPELLANTS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE MANUAL FORM ON 22.04.2016 AND THEREFORE, THE ABOVE QUOTED REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE INSTANT APPEA L. 5.1 MOREOVER, THE TWO FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED. FIRST LY, THAT IT HAS BECOME COMPULSORY FOR THOSE WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH TH EIR RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY, TO ALSO FILE THEIR APPEALS ELECTRON ICALLY BEFORE A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON OR AFTER MARCH 01,2016. THI S IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNING NOTIFICATION DAT ED MARCH 01,2016, TO THE EFFECT THAT AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL BE MADE ELECTRONICALLY IN FORM NO.35 UNDER A DIGITAL SIGNATURE/ELECTRONIC VER IFICATION CODE. SECONDLY, THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FILED MANUALLY AFTER THE AFOREMENTIONED CUT- OFF DATE, AND THAT IT DOES NOT FALL IN EXCLUDED CAT EGORY. 5.2 FURTHERMORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF ELECTRONIC FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME HAS TO BE REFERRED AS ON 01.03.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, IRRES PECTIVE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT ON 01.03.2016 WHETH ER THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY OR NOT. UND ER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPE AL ELECTRONICALLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND THEN BY THE EXTENDED DATE I.E.15.06.2 016 AS PER THE CIRCULAR NO.20 WHICH IS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE MANUAL APPEAL FILED IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(1) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENT LY, THIS APPEAL IS TREATED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND INVALID AB INITO. ACCORDINGLY , THERE WOULD BE NO CAUSE TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER ASPECT OF THE APPEAL, INCLUDING O THER STATUTORY PROCEDURES, DEFICIENCY IN DOCUMENTS OR THE MERITS OF THE CASE, ETC. 6. AS A RESULT, THE MANUAL APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELL ANT FOR A.Y.2002-03 IS TREATED AS DISMISSED, U/S. 250 R.W.S.251 OF THE ACT . 2. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEF ORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], MS. SHEFALI GARG, HAS PLEADED FOR RESTORATION OF APPEALS BY PLACING RELIA NCE ON THE RECENT DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PETITIONERS VS. ITO [ITA NO. 7134/MUM/2017 DATED 04 /05/2018]. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, HAS CONTROVERTED THE SAME BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE EX TANT RULES AND THE 3 ITA NOS.03/MUM/2018 & 7436 TO 7438/MUM/2017 LYKA LABS LIMITED ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE HAVE HEARD T HE SAME AND GONE THROUGH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN RECORD INCLUDING THE CITED DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. THE DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH WERE THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BE TABULATED AS UNDER:- NO. AY DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SECTION UNDER WHICH FRAMED DATE OF MANUAL APPEAL FI LED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) 1. 2002-03 27/03/2016 143(3) R.W.S. 254 22/04/2016 2. 2004-05 31/03/2016 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 254 22/04/2016 3. 2010-11 30/03/2016 271(1)(C) 22/04/2016 4. 2011-12 30/03/2016 271(1)(C) 22/04/2016 PRIMA FACIE, ALL THE MANUALS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMI T. AS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS SINCE THE SAME WERE REQUIRED TO BE E-FILED WITH LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH EFFECT FROM 01/03/2016 IN TERMS OF CBDT NOTIFICATION NO. SO 637(E) [NO. 11/2016 (F. NO. 149 /150/2015-TPL)], DATED 1-3-2016. 5. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE STATED ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CITED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FROM THE RECORDS WE NOTICED THAT ELECT RONICALLY FILING OF THE APPEALS WAS INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME VIDE RULE 45 OF I .T. RULES 1962, MANDATING 4 ITA NOS.03/MUM/2018 & 7436 TO 7438/MUM/2017 LYKA LABS LIMITED COMPULSORY E-FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE COM MISSIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST MARCH 2016. WE NOTICED THAT IN THIS RESPECT, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT IN ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBSTANTI VE LAW I.E I.T. ACT, 1961. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMEN T IN THE ABOVE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. HOWE VER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN PAPER FORM AS PRESCRIBE D UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT 1961 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION . BUT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILE D APPEAL THROUGH ELECTRONIC FORM, WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER I.T. RULES 1962. AF TER HAVING CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FACTUAL POSITION, WE FIND THAT HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHYAMALAL MURARI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1976 (SC) 1177 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT GO ST RICTLY BY THE RULEBOOK TO DENY JUSTICE TO THE DESERVING LITIGANT AS IT WOULD LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT A LL THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE HANDMAID OF JUSTICE. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE D RAFTSMAN OF PROCEDURAL LAW MAY BE LIBERAL OR STRINGENT, BUT THE FACT REMAINS T HAT THE OBJECT OF PRESCRIBING PROCEDURE IS TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS SAID IN AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, NO PARTY SHOULD ORDINARILY BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY OF PART ICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE DISPENSATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT REPORTED AS AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 IN THE CASE OF RANI KUSUM VRS. KANCHAN DEVI, REITERATED THAT, A PROCEDURAL LAW SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE CON STRUED AS MANDATORY, AS IT IS ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO AND IS IN AID OF JUSTICE. ANY INTERPRETATION, WHICH ELUDES OR FRUSTRATES THE RECIPIENT OF JUSTICE, IS NOT TO BE F OLLOWED. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE GATHERED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE APPEAL IN PAPER FORM, HOWEVER ONL Y THE E-FILING OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING TO US, THE SAME IS ONLY A TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION. IN THIS RESPECT, WE RELY UPON THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS REITER ATED THAT IF IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION AND SUBS TANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER , THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED AND CANNOT BE OVER SHADOWED OR NEGATIVED BY SUCH TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. APART FROM ABOVE WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN APPEAL ITA NO. 6595/DEL /16 IN CASE TITLED GURINDER SINGH DHILLON VRS. ITO HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) U NDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH A DIRECTION DO DECIDE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERIT, AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY, IF ANY. SINCE IN THE PRESENT C ASE, WE FIND THAT APPEAL IN THE PAPER FORM WAS ALREADY WITH LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE I N THAT EVENTUALITY THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL SOLEL Y ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY BE FORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED AND RELIED UPON ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE CAUSE 5 ITA NOS.03/MUM/2018 & 7436 TO 7438/MUM/2017 LYKA LABS LIMITED OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IN CASE, WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) & ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL. WHILE SEEKING THE COMPLIANCE, W E DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE D ATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IN CASE, THE DIRECTIONS ARE FOLLOWED THEN IN THAT EVEN TUALITY, THE DELAY IN E-FILING THE APPEAL SHALL STAND CONDONED. LD. CIT(A) IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. RESULTANTLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY CONTRA RY JUDGMENT IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDIC IAL PRECEDENT, TAKING THE SAME VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO E-FILE THE AFORESAID APPEALS WITHIN A PERIOD OF 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER, CONSEQUENT TO WHICH DELAY IN E-FILING SHALL STAND CONDONED.THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE APPEALS ON M ERITS AS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE ALL APPEALS STAND ALLOWED IN TE RMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (C.N.PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 11.07.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH 6 ITA NOS.03/MUM/2018 & 7436 TO 7438/MUM/2017 LYKA LABS LIMITED ' COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ()*+,- ' THE APPELLANT 2. 123,- ' THE RESPONDENT 3. 73873 9: ; ()*+ < ' THE CIT