Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1676/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. SEEC Technologies Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Asia Private Limited, Income Tax, 203, The Capital, Finance Circle-3(1), 7th Floor, District, Manikonda IT Signature Towers, Park, Gachibowli, Kondapur, Opp. Hyderabad – 500 019. Botanical Garden, PAN: AADCS 4181 L Hyderabad – 400 084. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 11/02/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/02/2019 ORDER PER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad on 15/03/2018.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company, engaged in the business of software development and IT enables services, e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 26/09/2013 admitting an income of Rs. 1,08,47,790/-. During the course of
assessment proceedings, the A.O. made additions on account of ‘income from house property’.
Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal manually, before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), observing that the assessee is required to file the appeal electronically, has dismissed the same in limine.
Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The order of the CIT(A)-3 s not only erroneous both on facts and in law but is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as in limine on the ground that the same is not e-filed as required under Statute. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that it is settled principle of law that rules are only sub-ordinate legislation and cannot override the right conferred under Statute and therefore, ought to have given an opportunity to e-file the appeal already filed and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal on that ground. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in referring to a decision which speaks of condonation of delay for late filing and not for e-filing not done and thereby erred in dismiss the appeal. 5. The appellant craves, leave to add, amend or alter the grounds as the occasion may warrant.”
The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that this was the first year in which the assessee was required to file the appeal electronically, but the assessee has filed the appeal manually within the time limit prescribed in the Statute. He prayed for one more opportunity for filing the appeal electronically and the appeal be decided on merits.
The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A).
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that this is the first year where the assessees were required to file the appeals electronically, but the assessee had filed the appeal within the time before the CIT(A) manually. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the assessee to file its appeal electronically and direct the CIT(A) to dispose of such an appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 15th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 15th February, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) M/s. SEEC Technologies Asia Pvt Ltd., Flat No.610, 6 th Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500001. 2) DCIT, Circle-3(1), 7th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Garden, Hyderabad – 500 084. 3) The CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File