2019 (3) TMI 495 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows second appeal, emphasizes fair opportunity for assessee, sets aside CIT(A)'s orders.

Creative Ideas Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward -28 (4), New Delhi.

The Tribunal allowed the second appeal filed electronically by the assessee, condoning the delay in filing and directing the CIT(A) to decide on the ... Maintainability of appeal before CIT(A) - First appeal was filed manually - Dismissed in limine - again filed appeal electronically with Condonation of delay - CIT(A) dismissed appeal stating that assessee should have file an appeal before the ITAT. - HELD THAT:- The findings of the CIT(A) cannot be sustained in Law. CIT(A) vide his first order dated 21st April, 2017 dismissed the appeal of assessee being not maintainable and in limine because it was not filed electronically. Thus, the appeal of assessee was dismissed on technical reasons, without deciding the appeal of assessee on merits. There is no bar on assessee in filing appeal electronically subsequently against the order of the assessment passed by the AO on Dated 18th February, 2016. The assessee has taken right step in moving fresh appeal before CIT(A) through electronic mode. The findings of the CIT(A) are thus, liable to be set aside. The facts and circumstances above clearly explain that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and as such, the CIT(A) should have condone the delay in filing the appeal electronically as per the Rules. Condone the delay in filing the appeal electronically before Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of assessee on merits, by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Issues: Appeal maintainability due to filing method, condonation of delay in filing appeal electronically, consideration of second appeal filed electronically, jurisdiction of CIT(A) after dismissal of first appeal.Analysis:1. Appeal Maintainability: The case involved two appeals by the same assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2013-2014. The first appeal was dismissed as not maintainable because it was filed manually instead of electronically. The assessee then filed a fresh appeal electronically, seeking condonation of delay due to procedural issues. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the subsequent appeal, stating that the recourse after the first dismissal should have been to file an appeal before the ITAT. However, the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the first appeal was on technical grounds and did not bar the assessee from filing a subsequent appeal electronically. The delay was considered bonafide, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.2. Condonation of Delay: The assessee explained the delay in filing the appeal electronically, citing the need to obtain a digital signature from an approved agency, which took time. The Tribunal found the delay to be justifiable and condoned it, emphasizing that the procedural lapse should not deny justice to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed a decision on the appeal on its merits.3. Consideration of Second Appeal: The Tribunal considered the second appeal filed electronically by the assessee after the dismissal of the first appeal. Despite the CIT(A) holding that the subsequent appeal could not be adjudicated upon, the Tribunal found that the dismissal of the first appeal did not preclude the assessee from filing a second appeal electronically. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal should be decided on its merits, and the delay in filing electronically was condoned.4. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) after Dismissal of First Appeal: The CIT(A) held that once the first appeal was dismissed, the assessee should have approached the ITAT. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the dismissal of the first appeal on technical grounds did not prevent the assessee from filing a subsequent appeal electronically. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, considering the delay as bonafide and justifiable.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the second appeal for statistical purposes, condoning the delay in filing electronically and directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case.