VINODKUMAR S TOTLA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1)(4), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the appeal electronically, considering the assessee's potential unfamiliarity with the new e-filing procedures. The CIT(A) was directed 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 mandated electronic filing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as defective and non-maintainable due to this procedural lapse.
What were the issues?
Whether a manually filed appeal is maintainable when electronic filing is mandated, and if a technical procedural lapse can be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 31.05.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment year 2011-12.
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.
ITA No. 1927/Ahd/17 [Vinodkumar S. Totla vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 -
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 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 appeal manually which was receipted by the office of the CIT(A) on 23/08/2016. We also take note of the fact that assessee had requested the CIT(A) to allow it to file appeal electronically with a request for condonation of delay. 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 considered opinion that a benign view be taken in the circumstances. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to grant opportunity to assessee to enable it to file appeal electronically before the CIT(A) in accordance with law. We thus direct the CIT(A) to admit the 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
ITA No. 1927/Ahd/17 [Vinodkumar S. Totla vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - this order for adjudication on merits. Intervening technical delay in filing the appeal as per the prescribed method stands condoned.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 05/07/2018
Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 05/07/2018 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 249
- Sanjay Mishra, Rewa vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, RewaITA 82/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S. Kalindi Ispat Pvt. Ltd., BilaspurITSSA 22/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S. Kalindi Ispat Pvt. Ltd., BilaspurITSSA 21/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S. Kalindi Ispat Pvt. Ltd., BilaspurITSSA 17/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2009-10
- Sanjay Mishra, Rewa vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, RewaITA 82/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026