VINEETH PERUMAL KOSHY,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the appeal electronically and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a manual appeal before the CIT(A) instead of the mandatory electronic filing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as defective and non-maintainable.
What were the issues?
Whether a manually filed appeal is maintainable when electronic filing is mandatory, and whether a technical defect should lead to dismissal without adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 16.01.2018 arising in the penalty order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2013-14.
(Vineeth P. Koshy vs. ITO) A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 - 2. When the matter was called for hearing, a reference was made to the affidavit of condonation of delay dated 18.12.2019 and a condonation of delay for 4 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal was urged. The delay of 4 days is condoned owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.
In the captioned appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal before it as defective and non-maintainable and thus refused to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the assessee had filed paper appeal manually before CIT(A) instead of filing appeal electronically as amended under Rules 45 of I.T. Rules 1962 w.e.f. 01/03/2016. The CIT(A) thus observed that it was incumbent upon the assessee to file appeal electronically to pursue remedy available before him. The CIT(A) thereafter observed that the case of the assessee is covered by provisions of section 249 r.w. Rule 45 of I.T. Rules, 1962 which lays down that every appeal shall be filed in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. The CIT(A) accordingly found that the paper appeal so filed by the assessee is defective appeal and thus non- maintainable for adjudication of appeal. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as defective and non- maintainable.
In the context, we note that the assessee has duly filed the paper appeal which was receipted by the office of the CIT(A) on 29/07/2016. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that e-filing was introduced about that time in the vicinity of paper appeal filed by the assessee, it is quite possible that assessee may not be conversant with technical aspects. The breach committed by the assessee is clearly of technical nature. We are thus of the (Vineeth P. Koshy vs. ITO) A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 - considered opinion that a benign view be taken in the circumstances. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to grant opportunity to assessee for disposal of appeal before first appellate authority in accordance with law. We thus direct the CIT(A) to admit the belated e-appeal for its disposal on merits.
The assessee therefore shall be entitled to file the appeal electronically afresh (if not filed so far) within 30 days of service of this order for adjudication on merits. Intervening technical delay in filing the appeal as per the prescribed method stands condoned. The matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication of issues involved in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced on 07/04/2021
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 07/04/2021 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026