LATE SHRI RAKESH SETHI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU SETHI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1896/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 August 2021AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to comply with the e-filing requirement. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, as the legal heir of the deceased, filed an appeal manually against a penalty order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that it was not e-filed, despite the assessee's submission about lacking a digital signature.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of an appeal for not being e-filed, without providing an opportunity to comply, is legally sustainable, especially when the appellant is a legal heir without a digital signature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 04.08.2021Pronounced: 09.08.2021

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of Ld. DCIT, New Delhi dated 30.03.2016. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “The Ld.CIT has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed against the order levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, of Rs.1,58,404/-.

2. The Ld.CIT has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant legal heir on the sole ground that the appeal was required to be e-filed whereas it was filed manually ignoring the fact that the appellant was the legal heir of the deceased appellant and was in no position to e file the appeal. 3. The Ld.CIT has erred in law and on facts dismissing the appeal without providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”

2.

At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. We have perused the appeal memo and the grounds taken by the assessee. The assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 22.01.2018 on the ground that the appeal of the assessee was rejected on hyper technical ground. The appeal of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the assessee failed to file the appeal by electronic mode. Before Ld.CIT(A), it was stated by the assessee that the assessee being legal heir of Late Sh. Rakesh Sethi, does not have digital signature.

4.

Having considered the material available on record, we are of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have been given an opportunity for meeting the requirement of law, if any. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 09th August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →