Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income vs M/S.Deepam Construction on 11 January, 2021
TCA.No.507 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.1.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tax 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, 1961 against
the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.2309/Chny/2019
for the assessment year 2013-14.
For Appellant: Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, SSC
For Respondent : Mr.N.Devanathan
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order
dated 04.12.2019 made in I.T.A.No.2309/Chny/2019 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for
brevity) for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following
substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in 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 by condoning the delay in filing of
appeal before CIT(A) when the CIT(A) had
found that the assessee had not filed any e-
appeal?
2. Whether on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in 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?
3. Whether on facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right ignoring Rule 45 of the IT Rules
mandating filing of e-appeal with effect from
01.3.2016 and Board Circular 20/2019 dated
26.5.2016 extending the time for filing of e-
appeal only till 15.6.2016 and thereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
condoning the delay in filing of first appeal?
and
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 condoning the non filing of e-
appeal?”
3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.Devanathan,
learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent/assessee.
4. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the manual
appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-15, Chennai [for short the CIT(A)] could have been
reckoned as proper filing of appeal on the ground that the e-appeal
was filed much after filing of the manual appeal.
5. An identical question came up for consideration before this
Court and a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ)
was a party, held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
in the decision in the case of CIT Vs. A.A.Antony & others [TCA.
Nos.432, 433 and 436 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020] wherein the
relevant portions read as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
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.
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
6. Thus, by following the above referred to decision, we are
constrained to hold that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call
for interference.
7. In the result, the above tax case appeal filed by the Revenue
is dismissed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed
and the substantial questions of law raised are answered against the
Revenue in terms of the said decision. No costs.
11.1.2021
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai.
RS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.507 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
RS
TCA.No.507 of 2020
11.1.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
