2019 (7) TMI 1829 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Allows Delay in E-Filing, Restores Case for Fresh Adjudication

Smt. Annapurani Hariharan Versus The Income Tax Officer, Chennai

The Tribunal, following precedents and Supreme Court principles, condoned the delay in e-filing as a minor breach. The issues were restored to the ld. ... Delay in e-filing of the appeal - Non filing of appeal electronically - Non comply with Rule 45 of the IT Rules - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that against the assessment order, the assessee filed a manual appeal on 21.04.2016, which is well within the time provided under the Act. Since the assessee did not comply with Rule 45 of the IT Rules, a show-cause dated 13.12.2018 was sent to the assessee to explain the cause for noncompliance with the aforesaid Rule. In compliance to the notice the assessee filed the appeal electronically on 26.12.2018. Since there was a delay in e-filing from the extended due date of e-filing i.e., 15.06.2016 and no petition to condone the delay has been filed by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits. On similar facts and circumstances in an identical issue, the Mumbai Benches of this Tribunal in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners [2018 (6) TMI 1171 - ITAT MUMBAI] as also the decision of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gurinder Singh Dhillon [2017 (4) TMI 1359 - ITAT DELHI] had held that the delay was liable to be condoned. In this case, we find that the delay was on account of the venial breach and as the assessee had filed the manual appeal within the time. Thus, respectfully following the principles laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Shyamalal Murari & Others[1975 (10) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT], the delay in e-filing of the appeal is condoned and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits in accordance with law by allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Issues:1. Challenge against ex-parte order by CIT(A)2. Non-compliance with e-filing requirement under Rule 45 of IT RulesAnalysis:Issue 1: The appellant challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A), contending that the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the case. The appellant argued that the manual appeal was filed within the stipulated time under the Act, and requested the Tribunal to direct the ld. CIT(A) to review the case on its merits. The ld. DR, on the other hand, highlighted the non-compliance with the e-filing requirement as per the amendment to Rule 45 of the IT Rules. The Tribunal considered the submissions and observed that the manual appeal was filed within the prescribed time, but the e-filing was delayed. Citing precedents from Mumbai and Delhi Benches, the Tribunal held that the delay was a minor breach and decided to condone it. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.Issue 2: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant initially filed a manual appeal within the statutory timeline but failed to comply with Rule 45 of the IT Rules, leading to a delay in e-filing. Despite the delay, the Tribunal decided to condone it, considering it as a venial breach. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to justify the decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's order, pronounced in Chennai on 19th July 2019, reflected the decision to restore the issues to the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard in the process.