SAMSONS RUBBER INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1044/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 July 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the e-filing of the appeal would relate back to the original date of manual filing, thus there was no delay. The CIT(Appeals) should have decided the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed manually on March 17, 2016, and later e-filed on December 7, 2018. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the appeal due to a perceived delay in e-filing, without issuing a defect memo or returning the manually filed appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the e-filing of an appeal relates back to the date of manual filing when no defect memo was issued or the appeal returned by the lower appellate authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN

For Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT
Hearing: 01.07.2019Pronounced: 02.07.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -15, Chennai, dated 20.02.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

No one appeared for the assessee despite the service of notice of hearing by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement received from the assessee as proof for the service of notice on the assessee. Hence, I heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

3.

Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that it is a mandatory requirement of law to e-file the appeal with effect from 01.03.2016. Admittedly, the appeal was filed only on 07.12.2018, therefore, there was a delay of 965 days. Since there was no explanation forthcoming from the assessee, according to the Ld. D.R., the same was rejected.

4.

Having heard the Ld. D.R., and perused the relevant material available on record, this Tribunal finds that the appeal was manually filed on 17.03.2016. 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 07.12.2018. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee admittedly filed the appeal manually on 17.03.2016 and also e-filed on 07.12.2018, the assessee’s e-filing of appeal would relate back to the original date of filing appeal manually on 17.03.2016. In other words, there is no delay in filing the appeal. If e-filing of appeal on 07.12.2018 relates back to manual filing of appeal on 17.03.2016, there is no delay at all. Hence, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have disposed of the appeal on merit. In view of the above, I am 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.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →