9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has erred in Law, in Confirming the Addition made under sec 68 of cash Income of Agricultural land of Rs. 15,40,500/- to the assessee's Income which is most unjustified and arbitrary. (2) On the Facts and Circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17 Confirming the Addition on Account of house Property of Rs. 9,72,701/- which is most unjustified and arbitory. (3) On the Facts and Circumstances of the Case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai has erred in law in Confirming the initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax 1961. 4) On the Facts and Circumstances of case, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in Confirming the Charge Interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961, Which is most Arbitrary. (5) The Appellant, Craves to Add, Delete Alter, addition to the above Grounds of Appeal." 2.2. The assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal before the tribunal which read as under:- " 1. The CIT (A) erred in not admitting the manual appeal filed by the Assessee and dismissing the same in limine without appreciating the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en within the aforesaid extended period. It is admitted position that the assessee filed its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within time as provided u/s. 249(2) of the 1961 Act albeit the appeal was filed manually instead of finding the same electronically as was mandated vide Rule 45 of the 1962 rules. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this short ground as the assessee had filed the appeal manually instead of e-filing the same, vide appellate order dated 29.12.2017 passed by learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not dispose of the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal on merits but on short ground of not filing of appeal electronically with learned CIT(A) as was mandated by Rule 45 of the 1962 Rules, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The assessee is aggrieved by an appellate order dated 29.12.2017 passed by learned CIT(A) and has filed an appeal with the tribunal . At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was filed by the assessee before learned CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 , while e-filing of an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was newly introduced w.e.f. 01.03.2016 and the assessee was not aware of the new changed procedure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is short ground as the assessee had filed the appeal manually instead of e-filing the same, vide appellate order dated 29.12.2017 passed by learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate issues raised by the assessee in its appeal before learned CIT(A) on merits. 6.3. We have observed that that newly introduced system of e-filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) was introduced w.e.f. 01.03.2016 vide Rule 45 of the 1962 Rules while assessee filed his appeal with Ld. CIT(A) on 12.04.2016. Thus it can be seen that it was an initial period of introduction of new system of filing of appeal before learned CIT(A) electronically. The assessee has claimed that he was not aware of new system of e-filing of appeals before learned CIT(A) and hence he could not e-File his appeal with the Ld. CIT(A) . However, the assessee filed an appeal with learned CIT(A) on 12.04.2016 within time prescribed u/s 249(2) but the same was filed manually. The appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on this short ground only without adjudicating issues on merits. In our considered view , there is no quarrel that the tax-payers are bound to follow procedures prescribed by authorities in fulfilling their obligati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. ITO(E)-1(2),Mumbai in ITA no. 7134/Mum/2017 vide order dated 04.05.2018 has restored the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) , by holding as under:- "The present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai, dated 15.09.17 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee is a trust registered with DITEUR, Mumbai u/s 12A and with Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.11 alongwith the income and expenditure account, balance sheet and audit report in form 10B declaring total income at Rs. 1,81,777/-. Thereafter, assessment for AY 2013-14 was completed by order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 17.02.16 at taxable income of Rs. 14,22,664/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) noticed that rule 45 of I.T. Rules 1962 mandating compulsory E-filing of appeals before CIT(A) with effect from 1st March 2016, therefore Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limini by holding that mandatory requirement of E-filing of appeal have not been fulfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab Vs. Shyamalal Murari and others reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 1177' has categorically held that courts should not go strictly by the rulebook to deny justice to the deserving litigant as it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the rules of procedure are handmaid of Justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of Justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has said in an 'adversarial' system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of Justice dispensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement reported as AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 in the case of 'RaniKusum Vrs. Kanchan Devi,' reiterated that, a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, as it is always subservient to and is in aid of Justice. Any interpretation, which eludes or frustrates the recipient of Justice, is not to be followed. From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onic form after a certain date by issuing notification vide Notification No. SO 637(E) [No.11/2016 (F. No.149/150/2015-TPL)] dated 01.03.16 as per which the assessee is required to file form No.35 electronically. It is also an admitted fact that the CBDT has extended such due date of filing of appeal in electronic mode up to 15.06.16 considering the hardships/technical glitches in filing the appeal electronically. Admittedly, the assessee has filed its appeal in paper form on 29.04.16. The assessee claims that it is unaware of the notification issued by the CBDT for filing appeals in electronic format, therefore, it has filed its appeal in manual form on 29.04.16. The assessee further claims that during transition period the provisions of notification should not be applied strictly. 7. Having heard both the sides, we find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that during transition period the provisions of any notification or circulars mandating the assessees to follow certain instructions should not be strictly applied. We further noticed that the assessee has filed its appeal in manual form and such appeal has been filed within the prescribed time under the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
