SRI PANDURANGA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.4, TUMKUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 582/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 November 2019AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the electronic appeal should relate back to the original manual filing date, as no defect memo was issued for the manual filing. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee manually filed an appeal on April 11, 2016, which was within the due date. Later, to comply with amended rules, an electronic appeal was filed on February 19, 2018, which was considered belated by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the delay in the electronic filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as belated when an earlier manual appeal was filed within the due date and a subsequent electronic appeal was filed to comply with new rules.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC, “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN

For Appellant: Shri S Krishnaswamy, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel to Dept
Hearing: 05.11.2019Pronounced: 05.11.2019

O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22-12-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by holding the same as invalid.

2.

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee challenged the assessment order by filing appeal manually on 11.4.2016. Since the Rules have been amended providing for filing of appeal electronically, the assessee filed another set of appeal electronically on 19-02-2018. The appeal so filed electronically was belated by 681 days. Hence the Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3.

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee received copy of assessment order on 10-03-2016 and hence the due date for filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) was 09-04-2016. Since 09-04-2016 and 10-04-2016 happened to be holidays, i.e., Saturday and Sunday respectively, the assessee filed appeal manually on 11.04.2016. Accordingly he submitted that there was no delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). Subsequently, in order to comply with the requirement of amended provisions, the assessee filed appeal again electronically on 19-02-2018. He submitted that the Ld CIT(A) did not recognise the appeal filed by the assessee manually and took cognizance of appeal filed electronically. Accordingly he has held that there was delay in filing appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

4.

The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Chennai bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri G.P. Saravanan vs. ITO (ITA No.279/Chny/2019 dated 10-05-2019) and submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal, on identical set of facts, has held that the Ld CIT(A) shall consider the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

5.

The Ld D.R, on the contrary, supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A).

6.

I heard the parties and perused the record. I notice that an identical issue was considered by the Chennai bench of Tribunal in the above cited case and the same was decided as under:-

“14. Having heard the Ld.counse) for the assessee and the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal finds that the appeal was manually filed on 02.05.2016. It is not the case of the Revenue that any defect memo was issued or the appeal was returned. When the appeal was filed by the assessee manually, if it is not in tune with the statutory requirement, it is for the CIT(Appeals) either to issue a defect memo or to return the appeal filed manually, to the assessee. Admittedly, no such action was taken by the CIT(Appeals). The appeal was e- filed on 22.12.2018. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee admittedly filed the appeal manually on 02.05.2016 and also e-filed on 22.12.2018, the assessee's e- filing of appeal would relate back to the original date of filing appeal manually on 02.05.2016. In other words, there is no delay in filing the appeal. If e- filing of appeal on 22.12.2018 relates back to manual filing of appeal on 02.05.2016, there is no delay at all. Hence, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have disposed of the appeal on merit. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall consider the appeal on merit and dispose the same in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.”

7.

Since the facts are identical, following the above said order of the Tribunal, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file with the direction to dispose of the appeal on merits, after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th November, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →