TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause of delay, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. Non filing of E-appeal - mandatory requirement of e-filing of appeal have not been fulfilled by the assessee - appeal filed manually was not treated as valid appeal - HELD THAT:- We find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Shyamalal Murari and others [ 1975 (10) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT ] 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. From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however only the e-filing of appeal has not been done by the assessee and according to us, the same is only a technical consideration. In this respect, we rely upon the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has reiterated that if in a given circumstances, the technical consideration and substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be directed to treat the same as valid appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining the demand of ₹ 46,017/- raised by the A.O. u/s201(1) of the Income-Tax Act on account of short deduction or non deduction of TDS on Interest and ₹ 27,611/- u/s 201(1A) on account interest thereon totalling to ₹ 73,628/- . Hence the demand so raised by the A.O. and confirmed the Ld. CIT (A) by treating the assessee as assessee in default is being totally contrary to the provisions of the law and facts on the record and hence kindly to be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 5. In this appeal, there is delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal and for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay and the contents of the same are as under: 1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is a Banking financial institute, having branch office at Sardarshahar Churu. In this case the TDS assessment was completed on 06.03.2017 u/s 201(1)/201(1A) raising the demand. Again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r now. Due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. In support of these contention an affidavit of the my (Nodal officer) is enclosed 6. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But, the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. The said judgment is a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice to the parties by disposing of the matter on merits, therefore, while considering the matters for condonation of delay, the law must be applied in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice and technical considerations should not come in the way of cause of substantial justice. There is no quarrel that the explanation and reasons explained for delay must be bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in the underhand way. If the party who is seeking condonation of delay has not acted in malafide manner and reasons explained are factually correct then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of such party. A justice-oriented approach has to be taken while deciding the matter for condonation of delay. However, this does not mean that a litigant gets free right to approach the court at its will. 8. If we apply the settled principles as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as other courts on the facts of the present case we find that the assessee has explained cause of delay, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have taken into account that the alleged compliance defaults were of a technical nature and being introduced for the first time in the statute books ought to have considered legally and heard the appeal on merits. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in denying an opportunity of appeal to deserving assessee and thus resulted in denial of opportunity of Justice in the deserving case. 14. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Department supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 15. We have heard the ld. counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that electronically filing of the appeals was introduced for the first time vide Rule 45 of I.T. Rules 1962, mandating compulsory e-filing of appeals before appellate Commissioner with effect from 1stMarch 2016. We noticed that in this respect, there is no corresponding amendment in any of the provisions of the substantive law i.e I.T. Act, 1961. As per the facts of the present case, the assessment in the above case was completed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal afresh on merit, after condoning the delay, if any. 17. Since in the present case, we find that appeal in the paper form was already with Ld. CIT(A), therefore in that eventuality the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically before the appellate Commissioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the case laws discussed and relied upon above, we are of the considered view that the cause of Justice would be served in case, we set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) allow the present appeal. While seeking the compliance, we direct the assessee to file the appeal electronically within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the directions are followed then in that eventuality, the Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to consider the appeal filed by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Resultantly, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 18. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
