Case Law Details
Dheeraj Exports Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
There is delay of 607 days in filing the present appeal before us. The assessee has filed affidavit of the partner of the assessee thereby stating that due to certain difficulties which was elaborately explained in the affidavit the assessee could not file the appeal before us. The delay appears to be genuine and, therefore, we are allowing the condonation of delay application of the assessee. As regards the order passed by the CIT(A) categorically on technical issue that the assessee has not filed appeal electronically as mandated under Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, it is pertinent to note that the assessee had filed the appeal manually/physically before the CIT(A) and the same should have been dealt with by the CIT(A) on merit. But simply rejecting on a technical ground amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the assessee. Therefore, we are remanding back the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.0 he learned CIT(A) erred in law in holding that appeal filed by the appellant before him is not maintainable as the same has not been filed electronically. It is submitted that appellant had filed the appeal within the time permitted under the Act and was otherwise complete in all respects and the same should not have been rejected at the threshold. It is submitted that it be so held now and learned CIT(A) be directed to hear the appeal on merits.
1.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal of the appellant on the ground that the same was not filed electronically ignoring the fact that the rule regarding electronic filing of appeal was introduced w.e.f. 01.03.2016 and the appellant had filed appeal on 01.04.2016 when the provisions of electronic filing were not in the knowledge of so many assessees. Your appellant submits that under the circumstances, CIT(A) should have taken lenient view and should not have dismissed the appeal in limine.
2.0 Without prejudice to above, the filing of the appeal in manual form is also covered by the provisions of Section 292B of the Act and hence should have been entertained by the learned CIT(A) and adjudicated on merits.
3.0 Without prejudice to the foregoing, even on merits of the case, the learned AO erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.51,60,137/- being the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s. 10AA of the Act and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the said addition by rejecting the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable. It is submitted that it is be so held now and the deduction u/s.10AA as claimed by the appellant be granted to the appellant.
3. The assessee company is an eligible SEZ unit and is entitled to deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the contentions of the assessee. The assessee company filed return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction under Section 10AA of the Act at Rs.51,60,137/-. The MAT liability has been paid on adjusting total income under Section 115JC of Rs.51,60,137/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.51,60,137/- thereby stating that the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction under Section 10AA of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) within the time permitted under the Act and merely not filing the appeal in electronic form which was introduced w.e.f. 01.03.2016 cannot be the sole criteria for rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) should have taken cognisance of the appeal filed before him physically. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of issues on merit.
6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is delay of 607 days in filing the present appeal before us. The assessee has filed affidavit of the partner of the assessee thereby stating that due to certain difficulties which was elaborately explained in the affidavit the assessee could not file the appeal before us. The delay appears to be genuine and, therefore, we are allowing the condonation of delay application of the assessee. As regards the order passed by the CIT(A) categorically on technical issue that the assessee has not filed appeal electronically as mandated under Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, it is pertinent to note that the assessee had filed the appeal manually/physically before the CIT(A) and the same should have been dealt with by the CIT(A) on merit. But simply rejecting on a technical ground amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the assessee. Therefore, we are remanding back the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 21st day of September, 2022.
