R.K.Infra & Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)-3, Kondapur, Hyderabad and another

WP/14683/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. R.K. Infra & Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 due to a technical defect, specifically the absence of electronic filing. The original assessment order was passed on 09.03.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14, and the appeal was filed on 09.05.2016, shortly after the requirement for electronic filing came into effect. The High Court found that the Appellate Authority should have returned the appeal for correction rather than dismissing it outright on technical grounds after a two-year delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794441 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T VINOD KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MV K MOORTHY
• Keywords: Appeal Dismissal; Income Tax; Technical defect; Electronic Format
• Section: 144; 45; 249

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.14683 OF 2018 Date:30.04.2018 Between: M/s.R.K.Infra & Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep.by its Director. … Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)-3, Kondapur, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. MV.K.Moorthy For Respondent : Mr.T.Vinod Kumar Gist : Head Note : Cases Referred : 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.14683 OF 2018 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J) Challenging the dismissal of an appeal in limini on account of a technical defect, the petitioner, who is an income tax assesse, has come up with the above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr.M.V.K.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Vinod Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. As against an order of assessment passed on 09.03.2016 under Section 144 of the Income Tax, 1961, in respect of the assessment order 2013-14, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before CIT (Appeals)-3 on 09.05.2016. After nearly two years, the CIT (Appeals) rejected the appeal by a twenty page order, ultimately holding that since the appeal was not filed in E-format, it is liable to be rejected in limini. Fortunately, the Appellate Authority made it clear that he was not adjudicating on the grounds of appeal as the appeal was dismissed in limini. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before us. 4. It may be true that in terms of Section 249 read with Rule 45 of the Rules, an appeal has to be filed in the electronic format. But, the appeal was filed on 09.05.2016, within two months immediately after the amendment came into force. Therefore, the Appellate Authority in all fairness could have returned the appeal papers and directed the petitioner to file the appeal in the electronic format. Without doing so, and keeping the appeal pending for two years, the Appellate Authority cannot reject it on this technical ground. 3 5. If an appeal is not in the proper format, the first thing to be done is to return it to the appellant, directing him to set right the defect. Rejection is not the remedy. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to return the original appeal to the petitioner within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within a further period of two (2) weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall represent the appeal both in hard copy and in the electronic format. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority may consider the appeal on merits and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to raise all grounds including the additional grounds. 7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ____________ J. UMA DEVI, J April 30, 2018 KTL "