TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

The present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 58 in short referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’, Mumbai, dated 31.10.18 for Assessment Year (in short AY) 2013-14.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee electronically filed its return of income on 29/11/2013 for the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequently e-filed a revised return of income on 30.03.15, declaring current year income of Rs. 51,37,61,780/- under normal provision and Rs. 22,05,27,770/- under section 115JB of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and same was manually selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information as called for. After verifying the relevant documents, AO made certain disallowances.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal manually, before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is required to file the appeal electronically which is mandatory. Assessee filed e-appeal subsequently, but Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there is issue of condonation of delay as neither there is proper petition for condonation of delay nor is there sufficient cause established to condone the delay.

Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.

Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this was the first year in which the assessee was required to file the appeal electronically and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with the observation that there is issue of condonation of delay as neither there is proper petition for condonation of delay nor is there sufficient cause established to condone the delay. However, assessee has also filed the appeal electronically. Further, he submitted that the manual appeal was filed on time.

The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, argued in support of the order of the CIT(A).

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, we find that the appeal was required to be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) electronically not manually. However, the assessee has also filed the appeal electronically. But, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with the observation that there is issue of condonation of delay as neither there is proper petition for condonation of delay nor is there sufficient cause established to condone the delay.

From the records we noticed that electronically filing of the appeals was introduced for the first time vide rule 45 of I.T. Rules 1962, mandating compulsory e-filing of appeals before appellate Commissioner with effect from 1stMarch 2016. We noticed that in this respect, there is no corresponding amendment in any of the provisions of the substantive law i.e I.T. Act, 1961.

After having considered, we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of Punjab Vs.ShyamalalMurari and others reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 1177’ has categorically held that courts should not go strictly by the rulebook to deny justice to the deserving litigant as it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all the rules of procedure are handmaid of Justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of Justice.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has said in an ‘adversarial’ system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of Justice dispensation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement reported as AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 in the case of ‘Rani Kusum Vrs. Kanchan Devi,’ reiterated that, a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, as it is always subservient to and is in aid of Justice. Any interpretation, which eludes or frustrates the recipient of Justice, is not to be followed.

From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however only the e-filing of appeal has not been done by the assessee and according to us, the same is only a technical consideration. In this respect, we rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that if in a given circumstances, the technical consideration and substantial Justice are pitted against each other, then in that eventuality the cause of substantial Justice deserves to be preferred and cannot be overshadowed or negatived by such technical considerations.

Apart from above we have also noticed that the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in appeal in case titled Gurinder Singh Dhillon Vrs. ITO had restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(a) under identical circumstances with a direction do decide appeal afresh on merit, after condoning the delay, if any.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the case laws discussed and relied upon, we are of the considered view that the cause of Justice would be served in case we set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the appeal filed by the assessee after condoning the delay and matter to be heard on merits after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

In the net result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as terms indicated hereinabove.