9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee could not e-file the appeal. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 24 days, for which, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a petition in support of an affidavit for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of 24 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 01.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 56,24,690/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is an admitted fact that against the assessment order, the assessee filed a manual appeal on 03.05.2016, which is well within the time provided under the Act. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that when the appeal was manually filed on 03.05.2016, no defect notice was issued to the assessee to rectify the defect of e-filing of the appeal. Moreover, we find that no notice under section 250(1) of the Act was served on the assessee fixing the appeal for hearing and without intimation to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) su moto passed the appellate order by dismissing the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not e-file the appeal. We are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manual appeal within the time and no show-cause notice to rectify the defect in filing the appeal was served on the assessee. Moreover, no notice under section 250(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee before concluding the appeal filed by the assessee. Thus, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Shyamalal Murari & Others reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 1177, wherein, it was categorically purported that when technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the substantial justice deserves to be prevailed over technicalities, the delay in e-filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) stands condoned and the issues in this appeal are restored to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
