ITAT Instructs Commissioner to Adjudicate the Manual Appeal, Assessee Doesn’t Know e-Filing Process

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) chaired by R.S. Syal (VP) rendered that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) adjudicate the petition furnished manually since they rejected the filed petition via the taxpayer on the cause that the same does not file electronically.

Though the need for e-filing of the appeals exists, the bench sees, due to some procedural factors that the taxpayer that comes from a rural background does not aware of the process of e-filing.

Beneath the same situations, the tribunal agreed that the ends of the justice does not meet satisfactorily when the impugned order would set aside and the case would be remitted to furnish the CIT(A).

The petition via the taxpayer, Deepak Shriniwas Mantri comes out of the order issued by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi concerning the assessment year 2008-09.

Both sides would have been heard by the bench and see that the assessment order for the case was issued ex-parte under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 fetching total income at Rs 20,35,910 as against Rs 1,41,200 shown via the taxpayer.

The authority of the Assessing Officer (AO) to count the income of the assessee through their judgment is specified in Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. aggrieved with the assessee’s compliance with tax statutes or the integrity of the information furnished via the assessee, this clause is invoked.

As per the provision, AO sends the notification to the assessee asking for the details or supporting documentation for their income tax return (ITR). When the assessee overlooks the notice then the assessing officer might move to find out the income of the assessee through the use of their effective judgment and the details at his disposal.

CIT(A) dismissed the petition preferred via the taxpayer on the basis that the petition was furnished physically and does not e-filed. But the same was acknowledged through him that the petition physically furnished was within the time.

After giving the assessee a fair chance to be heard, the single ITAT bench ordered to reevaluate the merits of the appeal.