Case Law Details
Paul Gerard Jenner Vs ITO (ITAT Dehradun)
The appeal has been summarily dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) treating the appeal filed in manual Form as invalid and holding that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the appeal electronically. The assessee could not submit the appeal in electronic Form/online as it had to be verified by Aadhar OTP/Net Banking. The appellant being a foreign national is not required to obtain Aadhar and also doesn’t have Internet Banking in India for verification. Hence, the appeal could not be filed. The assessee a foreign national cannot be expected to do an unfeasible task before filing the appeal. The rules and procedures are meant to enable easy & speedy justice and not meant to be an impediment in dispensation of justice. No prejudice would be caused if the matter is adjudicated on merits in the instant Form 35. Hence, it is hereby directed that the appeal be considered and be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DEHRADUN
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Noida dated 22.06.2018.
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“Ground No. 1
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical ground that the appeal was filed manually and not electronically.
Ground No. 2
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO travelled beyond the jurisdiction while making the assessment in Limited Scrutiny case without complying with mandatory requirements of the CBDT Instructions dated September 26, 2014, December 29, 2015 and July 14, 2016.
Ground No. 3
Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance.
Ground No. 4
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the exemption under section 10(10CC) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Ground No. 5
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the Appellant’s position that tax liability borne by Deep water Pacific 1 Inc is not a perquisite provided by way of a monetary payment in terms of and for the purpose of section 10(10CC) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Ground No. 6
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in concluding that no ‘gross up’ of taxes is done in respect of ‘perquisite not provided for by way of monetary payments’ within the meaning of section 17(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.”
3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. The appeal has been summarily dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) treating the appeal filed in manual Form as invalid and holding that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the appeal electronically. The assessee could not submit the appeal in electronic Form/online as it had to be verified by Aadhar OTP/Net Banking. The appellant being a foreign national is not required to obtain Aadhar and also doesn’t have Internet Banking in India for verification. Hence, the appeal could not be filed. The assessee a foreign national cannot be expected to do an unfeasible task before filing the appeal. The rules and procedures are meant to enable easy & speedy justice and not meant to be an impediment in dispensation of justice. No prejudice would be caused if the matter is adjudicated on merits in the instant Form 35. Hence, it is hereby directed that the appeal be considered and be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/01/2023.
