Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani ... vs Addl.Cit, Range-1(2), Ahmedabad on 27 February, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'SMC' अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC" BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI , MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018
{
नधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2012-13
Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani ACIT, Range 1(2)
Prop. of M/s. Kewalram Naraindas Vs Ahmedabad
3rd Floor, Manilal Mansion,
Opp. Shriram Cloth Market,
Railwaypura, Ahmedabad-380001
PAN No.ACFPC3208D
अपीलाथ!/ (Appellant) "#यथ!/ (Revenue)
Appellant by : Shri Praveen Kumar Sahu, AR
Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar Sr. DR
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 25/02/2020
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 27/02/2020
आदे श/O R D E R
PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, A.M:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-10, Ahmedabad dated 25.04.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 which is arising out of the order u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as the 'Act') framed on 11.02.2016 by DCIT, Central-1(2), Ahmedabad. ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018
Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani For AY 2012-13 2
2. Sole grievance of the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal rejecting application for condonation of delay and without looking into the merits of the case related to levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act.
3. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the details grounds of appeal and the statements of facts submitted that against the penalty order dated 11.02.2016 the assessee filed an appeal manually on form no.35 on 04.04.2016 which was well within the prescribed time limit provided in the Act. The assessee was required to file the appeal electronically but due to technical difficulty he could not file it on time. Finally, it was submitted electronically on 19.01.2018. He submitted that these amendments were new and they were technical issues which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal electronically on time. However, ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018 Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani For AY 2012-13 3 in the interest of justice the delay may be condoned as there was no mala fide intention of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on the following judgments:
i. Rani Kusum vs. Kanchan Devi, AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 ii. State of Punjab vs. Shyamalal Murari and others in AIR 1976 (SC) 1177 iii. All India Federation of Tax Practioners vs. ITO (ITAT, Mumbai)
4. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred and relied by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal electronically thereby not deciding the issue on ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018 Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani For AY 2012-13 4 merits. We observe that the assessee was served with penalty order dated 11.02.2016 and he filed the appeal manually on form no.35 on 04.04.2016. However, due to change in the rules of filing appeal he was required to file the appeal electronically. The appeal was finally filed on 19.01.2018, thus there occurred delay. Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay.
6. We, however, are of the view that the assessee filed the appeal manually within the prescribed time limit and electronically feature which was started at that point of time prevented the assessee was not techo-
friendly. There seems to be no intentional delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the issue on merits.
ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018
Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani For AY 2012-13 5
7. Our view is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rani Kusum vs. Kanchan Devi, AIR 2005 (SC) 3304, 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 and in the case of State of Punjab vs. Shyamalal Murari and others 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 and in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practioners vs. ITO. ITAT, Mumbai, ITAT finds 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. ITAT set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and allow assessee's ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018 Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani For AY 2012-13 6 appeal on the view that the cause of Justice would be served in the case.
8. In the light of above judgments and the given facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him by the assessee and adjudicate the issue on merits by passing a speaking order. Thus, the sole grievance raised by the assessee is allowed.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 .02.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR PRASAD) ( MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 27 /02/2020
Patel, PS
आदे श क& " त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु!त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- XV, Ahmedabad
5. $वभागीय 'त'न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड- फाईल / Guard file.ITA No.1571/Ahd/2018
Chetandas Kewalram Karamchandani For AY 2012-13 7 ु ार/ BY ORDER, आदे शानस TRUE COPY उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad