M A ANTONY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 15(1), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.

The appellant is an individual. Based on the information that assessee having bank account bearing No.0149073000001351 in South India Bank, Mylapore Branch, and assessee had deposited �45,00,000/- in his bank account during the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and assessee had also not filed return of income. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 25.03.2015. In response to notice, the assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2015 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,48,522/-.

Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai vide order dated 11.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs. 48,48,522/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹47,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act, since assessee had failed to explain the nature and source for the cash deposits of ₹45,00,000/- on 09.05.2007 and ₹2,00,000 on 21.5.2007.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer 3. assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) manually on 28.03.2016. The ld. CIT(A) had called upon the assessee as to why the appeal cannot be treated as non-est in the eyes of law as appeal was not filed electronically as prescribed under Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, vide show cause notice dated 13.12.2018. Subsequently, assessee filed the appeal electronically on 19.12.2018. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that appeal was filed with delay of 918 days, in absence of any explanation for delay dismissed the appeal in limine.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant 4. is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted the appeal was filed manually within the period of limitation and based on the show cause notice dated 13.12.2018, assessee had filed the appeal electronically on 19.12.2018. The ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating the appeal on merits, dismissed the same on limine without considering the merits of the assessment.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative 5. placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities.

Procedural provisions should be –so construed as to subserve the course of justice and not to hinder it. It is now well-settled that a procedural provision, ordinarily, should not be construed as mandatory, if the defect in the act done in pursuance of it can be cured by permitting appropriate rectification to be carried out at a subsequent stage. Procedural laws are devised and enacted for the purpose of advancing justice. Reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 511. In the present case, though the appeal was filed manually, ld. CIT(A) had taken cognizance of appeal memo, when required by ld. CIT(A) to file appeal electronically, it was duly complied with by the assessee. Therefore, appeal relates back to the date of filing of appeal manually. Thus, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we hold that ld. CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the assessments. In the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 4th day of December, 2019, at Chennai.