TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following effective grounds of appeal before us: "Ground - 1: Dismissing the appeal petition on account of compliance default On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has legally erred in dismissing the appeal petition on the basis of alleged compliance default of not having filed electronically. It is prayed that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal to be held to be bad in law and be quashed. Ground - 2: Penalty order is bad in law On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has legally erred in upholding the order pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itiated penalty proceedings under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the disallowance of its aforesaid claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(10) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee, dismissed its appeal vide his order dated 19.06.2014. 5. The A.O after confirming of the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under Sec.80IB(10) by the CIT(A), therein imposed a penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 44,60,010/-, vide his order dated 15.03.2016. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c), dated 15.03.2016 before the CIT(A). In the course of the appellate proceedings, it was observed by the CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that as the non-compliance with the procedure of filing of appeal in electronic form was just a procedural lapse, the non-admission of the appeal for the said default had caused great hardship to the assessee. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee had thereafter electronically filed the appeal with the CIT(A), the matter in all fairness may therefore be restored to his file with a direction for adjudication on merits. 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') did not raise any objection to the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the assessee. 9. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I.T. Act 1961. However the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in paper form as prescribed under the provisions of I.T. Act 1961 within the prescribed period of limitation. But the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that assessee had not filed appeal through electronic form, which is mandatory as per I.T. Rules 1962. After having considered the entire factual position, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab Vs. Shyamalal Murari and others reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 1177' has categorically held that courts should not go strictly by the rulebook to deny justice to the deserving litigant as it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in appeal ITA No. 6595/Del/16 in case titled Gurinder Singh Dhillon Vrs. ITO had restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(a) under identical circumstances with a direction do decide appeal afresh on merit, after condoning the delay, if any. Since in the present case, we find that appeal in the paper form was already with Ld. CIT(A), therefore in that eventuality the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically before the appellate Commissioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the case laws discussed and relied upon above, we are of the considered view that the cause of Justice would....