9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no delay in filing of e-appeal by the assessee to CIT(A) and remitting the case back for disposal on merits and thereby by condoning the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) when no e-appeal was filed by the assessee? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no delay in filing of e-appeal since the date of filing of belated e-appeal relates back to the date of filing of manual appeal? 3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right ignoring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. However, we make it clear that this observation cannot be taken advantage by the assessees, as of now, when the procedure has been in vogue ever since the year 2016 and stood the test of time and in all probabilities, as of now, all teaching problems would have been solved. Therefore, bearing in mind the fact situation in the year 2016, we are of the view that the appeals need not have been rejected by the CITA on the ground that they were not e-filed within the period of limitation. 13. One more aspect which we had noted is that in the case of assessee in T.C.A.No.433 of 2020, the order of assessment was passed on 31.03.2016, limitation for filing the appeal before the CITA would expire on 30.04.2016 and an appeal filed beyond the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings rendered by us we note that all the appeals filed by the revenue would have been dismissed on the ground of low tax effect, but for the application of Circular No. 20/16. 18. Mr.J.S.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the appeals in T.C.A.Nos.432 and 436 of 2020, the delay is more than 400 days and not marginal, as in the case of assessee in T.C.A.NO.433 of 2020 and in another case it is more than 900 days. 19. Be that as it may, we have taken note of the fact situation, which was prevailing at the relevant time and as noted by the CBDT while issuance of Circular, therefore, we do not wish to take a different view than the view taken by us noting the fact situation in T.C.A.No.433 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
