Order dismissing application over alleged non-filing of 71-page paperbook set aside; matter returned for fresh consideration

HC quashed and set aside the tribunal's order dismissing a miscellaneous application for non-filing of a paperbook and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. The HC accepted the petitioner's affidavit and service evidence that a 71-page paperbook had been filed and served, noting absence of the paperbook from tribunal records did not prove non-filing. The tribunal's summary rejection of the application was thus overturned and the matter returned for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues involved: Impugning an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejecting Misc. Application, non-consideration of second paperbook by the Tribunal, and the subsequent appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15.

Impugning Order by ITAT:
The petitioner appealed against an order by the ITAT rejecting their Misc. Application arising from ITA No. 3141/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner's representative presented a paperbook during the hearing, containing 43 pages, to demonstrate that the office premises in question did not form part of the block of assets for which no depreciation was claimed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite filing a second paperbook with 71 pages, the ITAT's order did not consider this additional submission, leading to the filing of a Misc. Application.

Non-Consideration of Second Paperbook:
In the impugned order, the ITAT only referred to the initial 43-page compilation, failing to acknowledge the subsequent submission of a 71-page paperbook by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the second paperbook was not taken into account by the Tribunal, despite having been filed and served on the Departmental Representative. The Court directed the respondent to confirm the existence of the second paperbook, and although it was not found in the Records and Proceedings, the Court accepted the petitioner's assertion that it was indeed filed.

Remand to the Tribunal:
Given the non-consideration of the second paperbook by the ITAT, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The petitioner was instructed to refile the compilation within two weeks, which the Tribunal must duly consider before determining if any modifications are required to the previous order dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The petition was disposed of without making any observations on the merits of the case.

---