JUBAIR ALAM,PALAMU vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), DALTONGANJ

PDF · subscribers
ITA 169/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 July 2020AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice, especially when the hard copy was filed on time. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was rejected due to a delay of 353 days in e-filing. The assessee had filed the hard copy of the appeal within the prescribed time and attributed the e-filing delay to critical health issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in e-filing of an appeal, when the hard copy was filed within time and the delay was due to genuine health reasons, should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “E” Court at KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH (Oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ranchi’s order dated 17.12.2018 passed in case No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10004/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It appears at the outset that the CIT(A) has refused to condone of 353 days’ delay in e-filing of the assessee’s lower appeal. We notice from a perusal of the case file that the taxpayer had very well filed hard copy of the appeal before the CIT(A) within the limitation prescribed period. And also he Jubair Alam Vs. ITO Wd-3(4), Daltonganj Page 2 attributed delay in filing the soft-copy as attributable to various critical health problem i.e. being a chronic nephro patient. Be that as it may, the fact remains that once the assessee had filed the appeal within time, he had made out a sufficient case of not having been filed e-copy of the appeal on account of health related issue only. The Hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. Mst. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) long back that all of technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly condone the foregoing delay of 353 days’ in filing of lower appeal through electronic mode and restore back the same to CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in open court at the close of hearing on Wednesday, 15th July, 2020 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद"य) ($या%यक सद"य) (Dr. A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member)

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →