IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER ITA NO. 7869/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HEMINDER KUMARI, VS. DCIT, CC-8, 105, JOR BAGH, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI 110 003 NEW DELHI 55 (PAN AAJPK0331K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MADHUR AGGARWAL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : MS. NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-24, NEW DELHI REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMNI AS NONEST, DESPITE THE FACT THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL MANUALLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 8.4.2016, HAD BEEN REMOVED ON 9.11.2017; WHEN SUCH A DEFECT HAD BEEN CURED BY E-FILING THE APPEAL. 2 II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ON 8.4.2016, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL THROUGH ELECTRONIC MODE, SINCE EVC FUNCTIONALITY FOR VERIFICATION OF E-APPEALS WAS MADE OPERATIONAL ONLY FROM 12.5.2016 FOR INDIVIDUALS. III) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPEAL FILED MANUALLY COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS NON- EST APPEAL MERELY BECAUSE THE SAME WAS FILED MANUALLY. IV) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT INFORMED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 8.4.2016 HAD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS; INSTEAD WHAT HAD BEEN STATED WAS THAT, THE DEFECT IN FILING THE APPEAL IF ANY, WAS CURED WHEN A DEFECT WAS REMOVED ON 9.11.2017 WHEN THE SAME WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED. V) THAT IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THERE BEING A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE ALLEGED DELAY IN REMOVING THE DEFECT AND FILING THE APPEAL MANUALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH A TECHNICAL OBJECTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMNI. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 8.4.2016 BY HOLDING THAT SUCH AN APPEAL WAS A VALID APPEAL. 3 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLICATION DATED 17. 12.2018 REQUESTING FOR EARLY HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT ASSES SEE IS VERY OLD, HENCE, HER CASE MAY BE FIXED FOR HEARING, OUT OF TURN. LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. BOTH THE PARTIES A GREED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS VERY SMALL AND MAY BE DECIDED T ODAY ITSELF ON THE BASIS OF RECORD AVAILABLE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE D ISPOSING OF THE MAIN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY ITSELF IN THE FORGO ING PARAGRAPHS. 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT D ISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS MORE THAN 7 9 YEARS OF AGE AND THE APPEAL PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID APPEAL ARISES FROM AN ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.11.2018, WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL IN LIMNI SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY BUT HAD BEEN FILED MANUALLY AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFECT IN THE APP EAL MANUALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8.4.2016, HAD BEEN REMOVED ON 9.11.2017; WHEN SUCH A DEFECT HAD BEEN CURED BY E-FILING THE A PPEAL. IT IS 4 FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDIC E THERE BEING A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE ALLEGED DELAY IN REMOVING THE DEFECT AND FILING THE APPEAL MANUALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH A TECHNICAL OBJECTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO HOLD T HAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMNI. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO HEAR AN D DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8.4.2016 BY HOLDING THAT SUCH AN APPEAL WAS A VALID APPEAL. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS MORE THAN 79 YEARS OF AGE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2018, HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMNI SINC E THE SAME WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY BUT HAD BEEN FILED MANUALLY. HOWEVER, THE SAID DEFECT HAD BEEN REMOVED ON 9.11.2017, AS STATED B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE SET ASIDE 5 THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO LD. CI T(A) TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 8.4.2016 AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY D OCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURN MENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18/01/2019. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED:18/01/2019 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR