The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anup Kumar Mittal vs PR Commissioner of Income Tax -20 & Ors. consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that it is a settled law that an assessee cannot be penalised or suffer adverse consequences for default on the part of the Revenue.
Facts
Mr. Jaspreet Singh Minhas, Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 3) and Mr. Mithun Nandkumar, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-20 (Respondent No. 1) joined proceedings by way of online video link in which Respondent No.3 stated that from the record, it was confirmed that the petitioner had filed an appeal in Form 35 on 13th July, 2016. He clarified that though, as per the physical record, there is pendency of the appeal yet there is no electronic record to the said effect as the said appeal has not been registered and uploaded
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that as the petitioner had filed the electronic appeal, there is no default on his part. If the appeal has not been registered and uploaded by the Department, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same:
“It is settled law that an assessee cannot be penalised or suffer adverse consequences for default on the part of the respondent-revenue.”
Relying on Shyamsunder Sethi vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 & Ors. it reiterated that “An appeal would be “pending” in the context of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 2020 Act when it is first filed till its disposal.”
Judgment
The impugned order was set aside and the Respondent No. 1 was directed to ensure that the electronic appeal filed by the petitioner qua the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 13th July, 2016 is uploaded and registered on the system and the petitioner is given the benefit for the DTVSV Scheme within four weeks.
Case: Anup Kumar Mittal vs PR Commissioner of Income Tax -20 & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 4920/2021 and CM APPL. 15113/2021
Bench: Justice Manmohan, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Decided on: 2nd September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
