TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned order on the following grounds before us: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT erred in summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds that the same was filed manually and not electronically as required in terms of revised Rule 45 substituted vide notification No. SO 637 (E) dated 01.03.2016. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT erred in not appreciating that the appeal was otherwise filed within the prescribed time limit and that there was only a procedural lapse on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal manually rather than electronically. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Rules, 1962, and therein made it compulsory for e-filing of appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) w.e.f 01.03.2016 in respect of persons who were required to file returns of income electronically. It was further noticed by the CIT(A) that the CBDT taking cognizance of the fact that as in some cases the tax payers who were required to e-file 'Form 35' were unable to do so due to lack of knowledge about e-filing procedure and/or technical issues, thus, had vide its Circular No. 20/2016 [F.No.279/MISC/M-54/2016/ITJ], dated 26.05.2016 deferred the EVC functionality for verification of e-appeals and made the same operational from 12.05.2016 for individuals and from 19.05.2016 for other persons. Backed by the aforesaid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nically filed when the aforesaid mistake was brought to the assessee's notice, the ld. A.R fairly admitted that the same was so filed only after the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for the aforesaid technical default was received by the assessee. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the mistake in not filing the appeal as per the prescribed procedure was for bonafide reasons, therefore, in all fairness, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... corresponding amendment in any of the provisions of the substantive law i.e I.T. Act, 1961. As per the facts of the present case, the assessment in the above case was completed u/s 143(3) of the 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 categoricall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause of substantial Justice deserves to be preferred and cannot be overshadowed or negative by such technical considerations. Apart from above we have also noticed that the Coordinate 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 a....