Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-A’, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – 3 Bangalore dated 22.11.2017 for A. Y. 2013 – 14.
The assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds. As per ground No. 2, this is the grievance of the assessee that the CIT (A) was in error in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of not filing the appeal ‘on line’ when the appeal was filed in paper form and no communication for refilling was sent to the address mentioned in Form – 35.
Learned AR of the assessee submitted that Rule 45 of Income tax Rules, was amended w.e.f. 01.3.2016 prescribing filing of appeal before CIT (A) electronically if the assessee is required to file return of income electronically.
She also submitted that the present appeal was filed by the assessee on 28.04.2016 in paper form as noted by CIT (A) on page 1 of his order. She submitted that since it was the beginning of the amended Rule 45, the assessee was not aware about this change. Regarding this observation of CIT (A) in Para 4.0 of his order that two letters dated 24.08.2016 and 26.07.2017 were issued to the assessee to advise the assessee to file the appeal in the electronic mode, she submitted that no such letter was received by the assessee. She submitted that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be provided to the assessee to file the said appeal before CIT (A) electronically and if that is granted, she undertakes that the assessee will do it and the matter may be restored to CIT (A) for a decision on merit. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). He also pointed out that as per Para 3.0 of the order of CIT (A), the letter dated 26.07.2017 was duly served on the assessee on 31.07.2017 and therefore, no further opportunity should be provided to the assessee.
I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the letter dated 26.07.2017 was delivered to the assessee on 31.07.2017 as per the tracking report reproduced by CIT (A) in Para 3.0 of his order. The claim of the assessee is this that this letter was not received by the assessee. Be that as it may. This is admitted fact that the appeal in paper form was filed by the assessee in time. Hence, non filing of the appeal electronically cannot be said to be intentional. The change in Rule was new i.e. w.e.f. 01.03.2016 and the appeal in paper form was filed on 28.04.2016. Considering these facts, I feel that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to file the appeal before CIT (A) electronically. Hence, I restore the matter back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision with the direction that the assessee should file the appeal before CIT (A) electronically on or before 15.03.2018 and submit the proof thereof before CIT (A) on or before 20.03.2018 and thereafter, the CIT (A) should decide the appeal on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. I make it clear that if the assessee fails to file appeal before CIT (A) electronically by 15.03.2018 and intimate CIT (A) as directed above, the CIT (A) is free to decide the appeal afresh in the manner he deems
fit. In view of this decision, matter on merit does not call for any adjudication at the present stage.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.