TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Late submission of documents should be examined, not outright rejected under procedural rules, says HC ruling</h1> The HC held that although the petitioner submitted required documents belatedly to the first respondent, these were not considered due to timing. The ... Furnishing of details required to be so furnished to the first respondent or not - those documents have been considered or not - HELD THAT:- The issue can be answered in a very short manner inasmuch as the details though furnished were submitted belatedly on 05.05.2024 when the order was passed on 30.04.2024 and as such, the same could not be considered by the first respondent. However, when an appeal had been filed before the second respondent, these documents were placed on record and it was requested by the petitioner for those documents to be considered. The second respondent has refused to consider the same on the ground that it had not been furnished to the first respondent within time and that the appeal was deleted. This is a case where the assessee has the documents, in the statement of objections which had been filed, the assessee had indicated the reconciliation which had been made. Of course, the same was not indicated in the format as desired by the first respondent, which had been communicated to the petitioner vide email dated 27.04.2024. Merely because it was not in terms of the said format, first respondent could not have come to a conclusion that there are no documents which have been furnished when details thereof had already been furnished. This aspect ought to have been looked into by the second respondent in the appeal and even this format could have been considered at that stage instead of driving the assessee to this Court by way of the present petition. The petitioner has been deprived of a valuable right in consideration of the documents which had been placed by the petitioner for consideration before the second respondent, if not before the first respondent - The matter is remitted to the first respondent for consideration of the documents filed by the petitioner in the present petition and dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Petition allowed by way of remand. ISSUES: Whether the petitioner furnished the required documents within the stipulated time to the first respondent.Whether the first respondent properly considered the documents submitted by the petitioner.Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of belated submission of documents and appeal.Whether the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to be heard and have the documents considered on merits. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The petitioner did not furnish the required documents in the prescribed format within the time allowed, as the order was passed before the documents were submitted on 04.05.2024.The first respondent could not consider the documents submitted belatedly on 04.05.2024 as the order was passed on 30.04.2024.The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the documents were not furnished within time and the appeal was belatedly filed, which was held to be improper as the documents were placed on record before the appellate authority and requested to be considered.The petitioner was deprived of a valuable right as the appellate authority ought to have considered the documents placed on record, even if not furnished in the prescribed format initially.The impugned orders dated 30.04.2024 passed by both respondents are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the documents filed by the petitioner. RATIONALE: The legal framework requires that documents in support of the petitioner's case be furnished within the prescribed time and in the prescribed format to enable proper adjudication.However, the Court recognized that the petitioner had submitted reconciliation details, albeit not in the exact format initially required, and subsequently complied with the format after the order was passed.The appellate authority's refusal to consider the belatedly submitted documents and dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay was found to be a denial of the petitioner's right to be heard on merits.The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not override substantive rights, and that the appellate authority should have exercised discretion to consider the documents to avoid injustice.This judgment reflects a balanced approach between procedural compliance and substantive fairness, ensuring that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to have relevant documents considered before final adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
