M/S KARNATAKA STATE UNORGANIZED WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 138/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 June 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by invalidating the appeal and then deciding it on merits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a physical copy of an appeal before the CIT(A) when an electronic filing was mandated. The CIT(A) initially deemed the appeal invalid but then proceeded to decide the case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by invalidating an appeal filed physically while still deciding the matter on merits, and the proper procedure for handling such appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT – DR

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 21/09/2017 by Ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

At the outset Ld.AR submitted that, present appeal is filed with a delay of 21 days. An affidavit of chartered accountant firm that handles case of assessee has been filed to explain the delay. It has been submitted that due to the representatives being held with complications in filing GST during relevant period/preparation of audit reports under section 44 A-B and Page 2 of ` preparation of filing of returns, the intimations sent by assessee went out of site thereby causing a delay.

3.

We have perused the reasons for delay. In our opinion the delay deserves to be condoned due to practical difficulties faced by representatives of assessee and that there was no intention in whatsoever manner for the delay caused.

4.

We accordingly condone delay of 21 days in filing present appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

Ld. AR further pointed out the fallacy in impugned order. Referring to para 2.2 of Ld. CIT (A)’s order, it was submitted that, assessee was required to file appeal before Ld.CIT(A) electronically w.e.f. 01/03/2016, whereas assessee filed physical copy of Form 35. It is also been recorded by Ld.CIT(A) that no effort’s were made by assessee to file appeal electronically subsequent to communication, though the same would have resulted in delay in filing the appeal, necessitating condonation of delay. Ld.CIT(A) therefore treated appeal filed by assessee on 22/04/2016 as invalid. Ld.AR at this juncture submitted that, instead of dismissing the appeal Ld.CIT (A) dealt with the issues on merits which is in total contradiction to the observations of Ld.CIT(A) in para 2.2.

6.

At this juncture Ld.Sr.DR, submitted that the issue may be sent back to Ld.CIT(A).

7.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

8.

We note that, during relevant period, assessee was supposed to file appeal electronically before Ld.CIT(A). We also note that Ld.CIT(A) treated physical copy of appeal filed by

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →