TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was delay in filing of these appeals on identical grounds, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in that cases has held Revenue claimed to have served the impugned orders electronically, the assessee pleads that they were not brought to its notice and the Revenue has not sent any further communication till the date of recovery notice served on 04.03.2019, manually. Assessee was unaware of such orders. When there is a change from one system, say the manual system to the other system, say the electronic system, apart from relying the rules and regulations, the Revenue as an administrator of the Act must also guide the assessees, in enabling them to comply with the systemic changes in a reasonable manner. Atleast in those cases, like this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn. The orders had been passed in levying late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act and demands were raised under Sections 200A and 154 of the Act. It was a submission that these appeals have been filed belatedly before the learned CIT(A), and there is a substantial delay in filing of these appeals varying from 223 days to maximum of 927 days. It was a submission that the reason for the delay in filing of these appeals was that the Accountant of the assessee, who was handling the income tax matters for both the assessee and company in which the assessee was a Director, and who was responsible for co-ordinating with Chartered Accountant firm, had been entrusted with the work of attending the e-orders/notices received. It was submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 and the issues restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 5. In reply, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the condonation of delay is an issue on facts and ignorance of procedure in respect of e-filing and e-receipt of notices is not an acceptable reason. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that the delay in filing of these appeals had been rightly considered by the learned CIT(A) when dismissing the appeals of the assessee. It was a prayer that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be upheld. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is very much known in law that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, then substantial justice must prevail. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndone the delay in filing each of these appeals and remit these appeals back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding each of them on merits after affording effective opportunity to the assessee. After condoning the delay, the issues had been restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. As the facts are also identical in the present cases of appeals, we find no reason to take any different stand from that taken by this Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the M/s. Thirumurugan Plastics P. Ltd., referred to supra. In these circumstances, and on identical reasons, the delay in filing of all the appeals by the assessee in the present cases also before the learned CIT(A) stand condoned and the issues raised in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
