Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Swelect Energy System Ltd on 5 January, 2021
TCA.No.492 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.492 of 2020
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Swelect Energy System Ltd.,
No.5, Numeric House,
Sir P.S.Sivasami Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
PAN: AAACN2366F ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 19.07.2019 made in ITA.No.557/Chny/2019 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, for the assessment year
2013-14.
For Appellant: Mr.J.Narayanasamy
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 19.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C"
Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in ITA.No.557/Chny/2019 for the
assessment year 2013-14.
2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of
law for consideration:
“1. Whether on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
holding that there is no delay in filing of e appeal
by the assessee to CIT(A) and remitting the case
back for disposal on merits and thereby
condoning the delay in filing of appeal before
CIT(A)?
2. Whether on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
holding that there is no delay in filing of e appeal
since the date of filing of belated e appeal relates
back to the date of filing of manual appeal?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
3. Whether on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
ignoring the Rr 45 of the IT Rules mandating
filing of E appeal w.e.f 1.3.2016 and Board
Circular No 20/2016 and condoning delay in
filing of appeal before CIT(A)?
4. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in condoning the
delay in filing of appeal even though the assessee
had failed to file any petition for condonation of
delay before the CIT(A)?"
3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned
counsel for the respondent.
4. Identical questions were answered in the case of The
Commissioner of Income Tax vs A.A.Antony in TCA.No.432 of 2020
dated 18.12.2020. Though there may be a slight factual difference in the
instant case qua the dates that will not be very material as the legal position
was considered in the above matter and a decision was taken in favour of
the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to follow the above referred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
decision and for better appreciation, we quote the relevant paragraphs as
hereunder:
"12. Taking into consideration the Circular issued by
CBDT, which in our opinion, appears to be a one time
measure, the substantive right of appeal should not be
denied to the assessees on hand on a technical
ground. However, we make it clear that this
observation cannot be taken advantage by the
assessees, as of now, when the procedure has been in
vogue ever since the year 2016 and stood the test of
time and in all probabilities, as of now, all teaching
problems would have been solved. Therefore, bearing
in mind the fact situation in the year 2016, we are of
the view that the appeals need not have been 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 is that in the
case of assessee in T.C.A.No.433 of 2020, the order of
assessment was passed on 31.03.2016, limitation for
filing the appeal before the CITA would expire on
30.04.2016 and an appeal filed beyond the said
period was time barred. However, if Circular No.
20/2016 is made applicable, then, the time limit for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
filing the e-appeals stood extended upto 15.06.2016
and even going by the date for verification of e-
appeals, it was made operational on 12.05.2016 for
individuals, both these dates are well beyond the
period of limitation in the case on assessee in
T.C.A.No.433 of 2020.
14. Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing
counsel for the Revenue had submitted that the
assesees may be sent back to the CITA to file an
application for condonation of delay and the CITA
may be directed to consider the same in accordance
with law.
15. We are of the view that if we are to direct the
assessees to adopt such a procedure, as argued by the
learned standing counsel, it would be very harsh on
the assessees, especially when the appeals are of the
year 2016-2017 and even assuming if it is done, the
contention which were advanced before us by
Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the assessee
would be once more again advanced before the CITA
and ultimately, lead to another round of litigation on
the issue of limitation alone, which we feel should not
happen.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
16. That apart, as observed earlier, the reprieve given
to the assessee by the CBDT appears to be a one time
measure and the benefit can be extended to the
respondents / assessees and we find that there is no
error committed by the Tribunal in exercising
discretion in favour of the respondents / assessees.
17. Apart from the above findings rendered by us we
note that all the appeals filed by the revenue would
have been dismissed on the ground of low tax effect,
but for the application of Circular No. 20/16.
18.Mr.J.S.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing
counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the appeals
in T.C.A.Nos.432 and 436 of 2020, the delay is more
than 400 days and not marginal, as in the case of
assessee in T.C.A.NO.433 of 2020 and in another case
it is more than 900 days.
19. Be that as it may, we have taken note of the fact
situation, which was prevailing at the relevant time
and as noted by the CBDT while issuance of Circular,
therefore, we do not wish to take a different view than
the view taken by us noting the fact situation in
T.C.A.No.433 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
In the light of the above, we are not inclined to
entertain the appeals filed by the Revenue, which are
accordingly dismissed, but, we leave the Substantial
Questions of Law open for consideration. No costs."
5. In the result, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed and the
substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
05.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk/cse
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench,
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.492 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
TCA.No.492 of 2020
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
