Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These three appeals filed by the assessee against the common Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, in 145 & 155/CIT(A)-15/2016-17 dated 31.12.2018 for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. , 711 & 712/Chny/2019 :- 2 -:
Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. N. Arjun Raj, CA for S. Sridhar, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee had filed these appeals manually as follows:
S. Particulars AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2013-14 No. 1. Date of receipt of 31.03.2016 31.03.2016 04.04.2016 assessment order as per Form 35 2. Date of filing of 29.04.2016 29.04.2016 02.05.2016 manual appeal 3. Date of show cause 04.12.2018 04.12.2018 13.12.2018 notice issued 4. Date of filing of e- 25.12.2018 27.12.2018 27.12.2018 appeal
4. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) had issued the show cause notice intimating that the appeal was to be filed by e-filing as mentioned in the chart above. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals and passed order on 31.12.2018 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 on account of delay and for the Assessment Year 2013-14 the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had not filed the appeal by e-filing itself, though the same had been filed on 27.12.2018. It was a submission that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri D.Saivenugopal Vs. ITO in ITA , 711 & 712/Chny/2019 :- 3 -:
No.385/Chny/2019 dated 17.06.2019 dated 17.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions.
7. A perusal of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri D.Saivenugopal vs. ITO, referred to supra, shows that the Co-ordinate Bench had followed the decision in the case of Shri GP Saravanan Vs. ITO in dated 10.05.2019 held as follows:
“6. A perusal of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri G.P.Saravanan vs. ITO, referred to supra, wherein, it has been held as follows:
Having heard the Ld.counsel 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 efiled 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 efiling 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.
Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri G.P.Saravanan vs. ITO, referred to supra, as , 711 & 712/Chny/2019 :- 4 -:
the assessee has filed its appeal manually on 25.04.2016 and has e-filed the same on 12.01.2019, the said e-filed appeal would in fact relate back to the date of filing of the appeal manually on 25.04.2016. This being so, we are of the view that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is unsustainable and consequently, set aside the same and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”
8. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri D. Saivenugopal vs. ITO, referred to supra, the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the issues of the appeals restore to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on the 27th day of August, 2019, in Chennai.