The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.deepam Construction

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.1.2021CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULATax Case Appeal No.507 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Deepam Construction...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai made inI.T.A.No.2309/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. Appealfiled against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, Chennai dated 26.06.2019 made in ITA.No.9/CIT(A)-15/2016-2017 for the Assessment year 2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSCFor Respondent : Mr.N.DevanathanJudgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity)challengingtheorderdated04.12.2019madeinI.T.A.No.2309/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) forthe assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law:“1. Whether on facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that there is no delay infiling of e-appeal by the assessee to CIT(A)and remitting the case back for disposal onmerits and thereby by condoning the delay infiling of appeal before CIT(A) when the CIT(A) had found that the assessee had notfiled any e-appeal? 2. Whether on facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that there is no delay infiling of e-appeal since the date of filing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of belated e-appeal relates back to the dateof filing of manual appeal? 3. Whether on facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright ignoring Rule 45 of the IT Rulesmandating filing of e-appeal with effectfrom 01.3.2016 and Board Circular 20/2019dated 26.5.2016 extending the time forfiling of e-appeal only till 15.6.2016 andthereby condoning the delay in filing offirst appeal? and 4. Whether, on facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in condoning the delay in filing ofappeal even though the assessee had failedto file any petition for condoning the nonfiling of e-appeal?” 3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned SeniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue andMr.N.Devanathan, learned counsel accepting notice for therespondent/assessee. 4. The issue involved in this case is as to whether themanual appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai [for short the CIT(A)] couldhave been reckoned as proper filing of appeal on the ground thatthe e-appeal was filed much after filing of the manual appeal. 5. An identical question came up for consideration beforethis Court and a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one ofus (TSSJ) was a party, held in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue in the decision in the case of CIT Vs.A.A.Antony & others [TCA. Nos.432, 433 and 436 of 2020 dated18.12.2020] wherein the relevant portions read as follows : 4. The issue involved in this case is as to whether themanual appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai [for short the CIT(A)] couldhave been reckoned as proper filing of appeal on the ground thatthe e-appeal was filed much after filing of the manual appeal. 5. An identical question came up for consideration beforethis Court and a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one ofus (TSSJ) was a party, held in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue in the decision in the case of CIT Vs.A.A.Antony & others [TCA. Nos.432, 433 and 436 of 2020 dated18.12.2020] wherein the relevant portions read as follows : “12. Taking into consideration the Circular issued by CBDT,which in our opinion, appears to be a one time measure, thesubstantive right of appeal should not be denied to theassessees on hand on a technical ground. However, we make itclear that this observation cannot be taken advantage by theassessees, as of now, when the procedure has been in vogue eversince the year 2016 and stood the test of time and in allprobabilities, as of now, all teaching problems would have beensolved. Therefore, bearing in mind the fact situation in theyear 2016, we are of the view that the appeals need not havebeen rejected by the CITA on the ground that they were not e-filed within the period of limitation. 13. One more aspect which we had noted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessment was passed on 31.03.2016,limitation for filing the appeal before theCITA would expire on 30.04.2016 and anappeal filed beyond the said period was timebarred. However, if Circular No. 20/2016 ismade applicable, then, the time limit forfiling the e-appeals stood extended upto15.06.2016 and even going by the date forverification of e-appeals, it was madeoperational on 12.05.2016 for individuals,both these dates are well beyond the periodof limitation in the case on assessee inT.C.A.No.433 of 2020. 14. Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learnedStanding counsel for the Revenue hadsubmitted that the assesees may be sent backto the CITA to file an application forcondonation of delay and the CITA may bedirected to consider the same in accordancewith law. 15. We are of the view that if we areto direct the assessees to adopt such aprocedure, as argued by the learned standingcounsel, it would be very harsh on theassessees, especially when the appeals areof the year 2016-2017 and even assuming ifit is done, the contention which wereadvanced before us by Mr.A.S.Sriraman,learned counsel for the assessee would beonce more again advanced before the CITA andultimately, lead to another round oflitigation on the issue of limitation alone,which we feel should not happen. 16. That apart, as observed earlier,the reprieve given to the assessee by theCBDT appears to be a one time measure andthe benefit can be extended to therespondents / assessees and we find thatthere is no error committed by the Tribunalin exercising discretion in favour of therespondents / assessees.17. Apart from the above findingsrendered by us we note that all the appealsfiled by the revenue would have beendismissed on the ground of low tax effect,but for the application of Circular No.20/16. 18. Mr.J.S.Narayanasamy, learned SeniorStanding counsel for the Revenue submittedthat in the appeals in T.C.A.Nos.432 and 436 of 2020, the delay is more than 400 days andnot marginal, as in the case of assessee inT.C.A.NO.433 of 2020 and in another case itis more than 900 days. 19. Be that as it may, we have takennote of the fact situation, which wasprevailing at the relevant time and as notedby the CBDT while issuance of Circular,therefore, we do not wish to take adifferent view than the view taken by usnoting the fact situation in T.C.A.No.433 of2020. of 2020, the delay is more than 400 days andnot marginal, as in the case of assessee inT.C.A.NO.433 of 2020 and in another case itis more than 900 days. 19. Be that as it may, we have takennote of the fact situation, which wasprevailing at the relevant time and as notedby the CBDT while issuance of Circular,therefore, we do not wish to take adifferent view than the view taken by usnoting the fact situation in T.C.A.No.433 of2020. In the light of the above, we are notinclined to entertain the appeals filed bytheRevenue,whichareaccordinglydismissed, but, we leave the SubstantialQuestions of Law open for consideration". 6. Thus, by following the above referred to decision, weare constrained to hold that the order passed by the Tribunaldoes not call for interference. 7. In the result, the above tax case appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunalis confirmed and the substantial questions of law raised areanswered against the Revenue in terms of the said decision. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS VI) /true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15Chennai TCA.No.507 of 2020 ev(co)ask05/02/2021