Case Details:

K. Hemlatha vs. ACIT

Appeal No.:

ITA N0. 1940/Chny/2019

Order pronounced by:

ITAT Chennai

Date of order:

20-10-2020

In favour of:

Assessee

• The assessee’s return was taken up for scrutiny wherein the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. On appeal, since the assessee could not e-file the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on manual basis, without adjudicating the issue on merits.

• Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal where he submitted that he had filed manual appeal within the time stipulated under the Act. It was further submitted that no notice u/s 250(1) of the Act was served on the assessee and suo motu passed the appellate order is illegal and prayed that the suitable directions may be given to Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by giving an opportunity to the assessee.

• It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed a manual appeal which is well within the time provided under the Act. No defect notice was issued to the assessee to rectify the defect of e-filing of the appeal.

• Moreover, no notice u/s 250(1) of the Act was served on the assessee fixing the appeal for hearing and without intimation to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) suo motu passed the appellate order by dismissing the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not e-file the appeal.
• We are of the considered opinion that it is not possible for each and every assessee to get updated with any amendment issued by the CBDT until and unless it was communicated to the assessee and in this case, no show-cause notice to rectify the defect was issued to the assessee.

• The assessee has filed a petition under section 154 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) for rectification and also filed appeal papers electronically later, in order to comply with Rule 45 of the IT Rules with a request for condonation of delay of 36 months & 3 days. However, no order u/s 154 of the Act was found to have been passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

• The Tribunal relied on the following decisions of the coordinate branches of the Tribunal:

1. All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. ITO [2018] 166 DTR 276 (Mumbai Tribunal)
2. Shri Gurinder Singh Dhillon v. ITO in ITA No. 6595/Del/2016 (Delhi Trib.)

• In this case, we find that the delay was on account of the venial breach and as the assessee had filed the manual appeal within the time and no show-cause notice to rectify the defect in filing the appeal was served on the assessee. Moreover, no notice u/s 250(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee before concluding the appeal filed by the assessee.