M/s. Metalyst Forgings Ltd., New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6534/DEL/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 653420114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AACCA3454H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 6534/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Metalyst Forgings Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 22-12-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NOS.6532 6533 & 6534/DEL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. METALYST FORGINGS LTD. C/O- M/S. RRA TAXINDIA D-28 SOUTH EXTENSION PART-1 NEW DELHI VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30 NEW DELHI PAN :AACCA3454H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT AM: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 28/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-31 NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A )] FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 2008-09 AND 2010-11. IDEN TICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AND THEREFORE SAME WERE HARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSO LIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAHUL YADAV ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ATIQ AHMED SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 19.04.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.05.2021 2 ITA NOS.6532 6533 & 6534/DEL./2016 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUND OF NO T E FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED OPTION TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AND THEN S HOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD ON MERIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT BY WAY OF DISMISS ING THE APPEAL AS NON-EST DUE TO TECHNICAL BREACH THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. HE SUBMITTED T HAT APPEAL MIGHT BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED C IT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH. 3. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS AL SO DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THE APPEALS AS NON- EST IN PARA 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 10. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT RULE 45 OF THE I NCOME TAX RULES 1962 MANDATES COMPULSORY E-FILING APPEALS BEFORE C OMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) W.E.F. 01.03.2016 IN RESPEC T OF PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONIC ALLY. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016 DATED 26.05.2016 HAD EXTE NDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF SUCH APPEALS WHICH WERE DUE TO BE FILED BY 15.05.2016 UP TO 15.06.2016. ALL E-APPEALS FILED W ITHIN THIS EXTENDED PERIOD WOULD BE TREATED AS APPEALS FILED I N TIME. HOWEVER ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE THE E-APPEAL FOR ANY OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERED EVEN IN THE EXTENDED PERIOD. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE E-APPEAL THE AFORESAID APPEALS ARE NON-EST AND ON THIS GROUND ALONE THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DISM ISSED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 4 & 5 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER HAS MENTIONED THE FACT OF INTIMATION OF MANDATORY E FI LING TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTH ORIZED 3 ITA NOS.6532 6533 & 6534/DEL./2016 REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO INTIMATED THAT ALL THE APPE ALS WERE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME NONE APPEARED TILL 28.10.2016 ON WHIC H DATE SH. SACHIN SAXENA CA APPEARED AND FILED POWER OF ATTOR NEY BUT DID NOT FURNISH ANY SUBMISSIONS PER THE ORDER SHEET NOTING OF SAME DATE HE WAS INFORMED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF E FILING OF APP EALS WHICH WAS MANDATORY AFTER 01.03.2016 ALL THE APPEALS UNDER C ONSIDERATION ARE LIABLE TO REJECTED. 5. AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER M ADE ANY SUBMISSION NOR HAS SUBSTANTIATED THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO DEC IDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS APPEAL MEMO CONTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. HENCE I HAVE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE. 6. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED OF REJECTION OF THE APPEAL OF THE GROUND OF NON-E-FILING OF THE APPEALS. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ONE HAND INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MANUAL APPEALS FILED WERE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ALSO DECIDED T HE APPEALS ON MERIT WITHOUT ANY SUBMISSION OR OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT B E DENIED SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE MERELY ON THE GROUND OF TECHNIC AL BREACH OF NOT FILING THE APPEALS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT RULE FOR COMPULSORY E-FI LING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS MADE EFFECTIVE F ROM 01/03/2016 WHEREAS THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED I N THE MONTH OF APRIL 2016. THIS WAS THE PERIOD OF THE BEGINNIN G OF THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND POSSIBILITY MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONALS OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY 4 ITA NOS.6532 6533 & 6534/DEL./2016 MAY NOT BE DENIED. BUT FOR SUCH TECHNICAL BREACH I T IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DENY THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BY WAY OF REJECTING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) INTIMATED T O THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT APPE ALS WERE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON TECHNICAL GROUND OF NON-E-FILING BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY HE DECIDED THE APPEALS OF MERIT. TH E ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER I NTIMATING THAT APPEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON TECHNICAL BREA CH IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. WHILE DECIDING ON MERIT NO WRITTEN OR O RAL SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE L D. CIT(A) AND THUS APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT EX PARTE . 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR P ROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING O F THE APPEALS AND THEREAFTER THE APPEALS SHALL BE DECIDED AFRESH ON M ERIT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY 2021 SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MAY 2021. RK/- (DTDS) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 5 ITA NOS.6532 6533 & 6534/DEL./2016 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI