M/S. LOTUS AUTO ENGINEERING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 290/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2021AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly dismissed the manual appeal as non-est. However, since the electronic appeal would be considered on merits after condonation of delay, substantial justice was rendered.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal manually with the CIT(Appeals) which was dismissed as non-est because it was required to be filed electronically. The assessee later filed an electronic appeal, which the CIT(Appeals) agreed to consider subject to condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether a manually filed appeal, when electronic filing is mandatory, is to be treated as non-est. Whether the subsequent electronic filing can be considered on merits after condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Paul, [CIT] – DR;
Hearing: 28/01/2021Pronounced: 28/01/2021

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–5, New Delhi, dated 3.11.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14 dismissing appeal filed by the assessee in paper format on 21.04.2016 against the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the ACIT, Circle-15(2), Delhi, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was challenged.

2.

The ld. CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as appeal was filed by the assesseein paper format manually. The ld. CIT (Appeals) held that assessee was required to file the appeal only in electronic form latest by 15.06.2016. The assessee filed appeal electronically only on 18.10.2016. Thus, he held that the paper appeal is to be treated as non-est and the appeal is to be dismissed in limine. However, he held that appeal filed by the assessee electronically on 18.10.2016 would be considered in the priority of disposal of appeal as per CBDT parameters having due regard to application for condonation. The assessee is aggrieved with the above appeal order. Page | 1

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

4.

The ld. DR also sought adjournment. However, looking to the facts of the case the appeal is proceeded on the basis of merits of the admission of the appeal. 5. On looking at the grounds by which the ld. CIT (Appeals) treated the appeal of the assessee as non est by para No. 3.5 are as under:-

“ 3.5 To sum up, the appellant was required to file the appeal only in electronic form latest by 15.06.2016. However, the present appeal / copy of the appeal filed manually in this office is a paper appeal and thus does not meet the requirement of the afore-stated rules. I have bestowed my careful attention to the matter and am of the opinion that since the appellant was mandatorily required to file the appeal electronically within the extended period till 15/06/2016, but has failed to do, the appeal cannot be treated as filed as per the mandates of the Act / Rules and there being no other way by which the defect could be removed other than by filing the appeal electronically (as per the applicable provisions), the paper appeal is to be treated as non-est and the appeal is to be dismissed in limine. The appellant has filed the appeal electronically on 18.10.2016, which would be considered, in the priority of disposal of appeal as per CBDT parameters, and having due regard to application for condonation. “

6.

On careful consideration, the ld. CIT (Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeal of the assessee treating it as non-est as it was filed manually and not in accordance with the provisions of the law at that particular time. However, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has also held that assessee has now filed appeal electronically on 18.10.2016, which would be considered subject to the application of condonation of delay and as per parameters set up by CBDT. As the appeal of the assessee filed on 18.10.2016 electronically would be considered on merits, We find that there is substantial justice rendered by the ld. CIT (Appeals). However, assessee is directed to file an application for condonation of delay, if any. We direct the ld. CIT (Appeals) to consider the same in accordance with law.

7.

In view of this, when the appeal of the assessee filed electronically would be taken up for hearing it would be decided on the merits of the casethe substantive grievance of the assessee would be settled when its appeal would be picked up for hearing. 8. In the result, ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. Page | 2

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on: 28/01/2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →