TERAPANTH FOODS LTD.,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM

Before the matter was taken up for a substantive hearing, the ld.counsel representing the assessee brought to our attention that the present appeal by the assessee was erroneously dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not uploaded reply

The fact of the matter is that in response to notice dated 4.7.2023 during the appellate proceedings, assessee prepared written submission running over 7 pages requesting to consider the same while deciding the appeal of the assessee, and the WS kept in PDF format which was uploaded on 10.7.2023. This fact was evidenced in e-proceedings response acknowledgement issued by the department wherein it was specifically notified the details of submissions prepared by its counsel, was being attached separately. But unfortunately, AR of the assessee omitted to attach the PDF file in the e-portal. Within two days, thereafter,i.e. on 12.7.2023, the NFAC, Delhi issued order dismissing the appeal of the assessee with specific remark in para 4.1 of the order that “On 10.7.2023 the appellant has filed the written submission on ITBA portal which is without any attachment.” The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted while admitting the lapse on the part of the assessee’s AR not attaching the file in the e-portal, that the concerned authority ought to have intimated the assessee about not uploading necessary attachment. The ld.CIT(A) ought not to have hurriedly decided the appeal without pointing out to the assessee about the omission of attaching the PDF files. Therefore, primary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted an opportunity to submit written submissions before finalizing the matter. The ld.counsel for the assessee sought for a fresh opportunity to submit written submissions and direction to the Revenue authorities to decide the case of the assessee accordingly.

We have considered submissions of both the parties; gone through orders of the Revenue authorities in the light of material available on record. We see that the main reason for the ld.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal of the assessee was the non-uploading of the assessee’s in the e-portal. This is evident from para 4.1 where the ld.CIT(A) noted that “Since then no reply has been uploaded by the appellant. Hence the case of the assessee is being decided on merits. On 0.07.2023 the appellant has filed the written submission on ITBA portal, which is without any attachment”.

Considering the facts on record, it is evident that the assessee genuinely pursued its appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on merit, despite the inadvertent failure to attach the written submissions on the e- portal. This genuine mistake warrants leniency. It is pertinent to note that when a huge addition to the extent of Rs.3,36,70,904/- with its consequent tax liability is being imposed on the assessee, it is unlikely that any assessee would prefer not to contest it by abstaining from submitting support submissions/reply. Therefore,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, as indicated above.