2021 (1) TMI 842 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds e-appeal filing delay, recognizing manual appeal as proper; emphasizes substantive appeal rights.

The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the delay in filing the e-appeal by the assessee to CIT(A), holding that the e-appeal related back to ... Non filling of appeal electronically within the period of limitation - prayer made by the assessee to reckoned the date of filing as on date on which the appeal was actually filed - HELD THAT:- As decided in A.A. ANTONY, SHRI K.G. SRINIVASAN, SHRI RAVI PRABAKAR case [2021 (1) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the substantive right of appeal should not be denied to the assessees on hand on a technical ground. However, we make it clear that this observation cannot be taken advantage by the assessees, as of now, when the procedure has been in vogue ever since the year 2016 and stood the test of time and in all probabilities, as of now, all teaching problems would have been solved. Therefore, bearing in mind the fact situation in the year 2016, we are of the view that the appeals need not have been rejected by the CIT-A on the ground that they were not e-filed within the period of limitation. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed Issues:Delay in filing e-appeal, Reckoning manual appeal as proper filing, Ignoring Rule 45 of IT Rules, Condoning delay without petitionDelay in filing e-appeal:The Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, regarding the delay in filing e-appeal by the assessee to CIT(A). The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the e-appeal, considering it related back to the date of filing the manual appeal. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal ignored Rule 45 of the IT Rules mandating e-appeal filing and Board Circular 20/2019. The Court referred to a similar case where the Circular issued by CBDT was considered a one-time measure, emphasizing that substantive appeal rights should not be denied on technical grounds. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the precedent.Reckoning manual appeal as proper filing:The main issue revolved around whether the manual appeal filed by the assessee before CIT(A) could be considered a valid appeal despite the delay in filing the e-appeal. The Court cited a previous Division Bench decision that favored the assessee, emphasizing that denying appeal rights based on technical grounds was not justified. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the manual appeal should be recognized as proper filing, in line with the earlier judgment.Ignoring Rule 45 of IT Rules:The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that Rule 45 of the IT Rules was disregarded. The Court, however, aligned with the previous judgment's view that the CBDT Circular was a one-time measure, granting leniency to assessees. The Court emphasized that directing assessees to file for condonation of delay would be harsh, leading to further litigation on limitation issues. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, maintaining the Tribunal's decision.Condoning delay without petition:The Tribunal's act of condoning the delay in filing the appeal without a formal petition from the assessee was a point of contention. The Revenue highlighted significant delays in some cases, but the Court considered the prevailing circumstances and the CBDT Circular, deciding not to deviate from the earlier judgment. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision and leaving the substantial questions of law open for consideration.