M/S. IPC PACKAGING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2705/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 April 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to treat the electronically filed appeal as valid and decide the matter on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal manually before the CIT(A), which was dismissed as it was not filed in the prescribed electronic format. The assessee later filed the appeal electronically after the CIT(A)'s order was passed but before it was served.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal dismissed for not being filed in the prescribed electronic format can be considered if filed electronically later, and whether the CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Shankar, Adovcate
For Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT

PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 9/11/2017 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 3 Bengaluru relating to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of polypropylene woven fabrics. An order of assessment dated 29/3/2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (Act) was passed by the AO determining the total income of the assessee at loss of Rs.48,37,722/- as against the returned loss of Rs.62,98,827/-. The returned loss was reduced because of disallowance

ITA 2705/B/17 2 made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Against the addition made by the AO, the assessee filed appeal manually before the CIT(A) on 25/4/2016. As per section 249(1) R.W. Rule 45 of the Income-tax Rules 1962 (Rules), the Assessee was obliged to file appeal in Form No.35, in electronic form. The office of the CIT(A) brought to the notice of the assesse that appeal ought to have been filed in electronic form and not physical form. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 9/11/2017. On that date, the assessee could not satisfy the CIT(A) that an appeal has been filed against order dated 29/3/2106 u/s 143(3) of the Act in electronic form. The CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assesse as it was not in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules i.e not filed in Electronic Form.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice by the ld counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 9.11.2017. On 11/11/2017 the Assessee had already filed appeal in a electronic form. The impugned order was served on the Assessee only on 15.11.2017. Since the Assessee did not attend the hearing on 9.11.2017, he was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal and also could not bring to the notice of the CIT(A) that appeal had been filed in electronic form. A copy of the acknowledgment for filing appeal in electronic form was also filed before us. In view of the above, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the appeal of the assessee filed in electronic form should be treated as an appeal filed by the assessee and decided on merits.

5.

Learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).

ITA 2705/B/17 3

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to treat the appeal filed by the assessee in electronic form on 11/11/2017 as an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 143(3) dated 29/3/2016. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th April, 2018.

More judgments on Section 249(1)

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →