Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax assessment under Section 143(3) resulted in certain additions. A timely manual appeal filed by the assessee with the CIT(A) was dismissed as 'non-est' for not being e-filed, with instructions to re-file. The assessee promptly e-filed the appeal, but years later, the CIT(A) dismissed it again, this time as infructuous due to an alleged delay of 697 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the initial manual appeal was timely, and the subsequent e-filing was done without delay following the CIT(A)'s instruction. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds of delay without considering its merits. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the CIT(A) to decide the matter on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal on grounds of delay and procedural non-compliance, despite the assessee having filed a timely manual appeal and subsequently e-filed it as instructed.
Sections Cited
249(1), 250, 143(3), 40A(3), Rule 45, Rule 46
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 04.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Nanalal Shah HUF “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)- NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous and not eligible for admission as was e-filed belatedly on 27-03-2018 and in violation of Section 249 (1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 whereas the appellant has filed the original appeal manually on 26-04-2016 within due date of filing an appeal and the first appellate order of the Id. CIT(A)-44 has treated the appeal non est with the further instruction to e-file appeal 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Id. CIT(A)- NFAC erred in mentioning on page three paragraph 6 in the appellate order page as, "There is nothing in record to show that the manual appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected by the CIT(Appeals)" whereas the appellant has in response an acknowledgment no. 720164571211124 to the notice of hearing vide ITBA/APL/S/APL_1/2018-19/1015357505(1) has attached the order of the Id. CIT(A)-44 passed manually. In the light of above, the appellant prays Hon'ble bench to direct the Id. CIT(A) to dispose the appeal on merits afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 55,27,760/- on 28.09.2013. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) at an income of Rs. 86,60,134/- after making an addition to the gross profit u/s 143(3) and disallowance u/s 40A(3) and out of salary expenses.
The assessee filed a physical appeal against the above order before Ld. CIT(A) on 26.04.2016. Vide order dated 26.03.2018, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes with the following observations: “3. It is seen from the records that the appeal of the appellant has been filed in paper form whereas the same was required to be e filed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 45 & 46 of the IT rules. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as non est. The appellant is free to e file the appeal once again with a request for condonation of delay.”
On the very next day, the assessee filed an online appeal before the NFAC. Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal was delayed by 697 days, and therefore, dismissed the appeal on account of being infructuous with the following observations:
A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Nanalal Shah HUF “9. The appellant has filed the appeal manually before the CIT (Appeals) within due date. However, as noted in para 8 above, the appellant is mandatorily required to e- file the appeal. Since the appellant has failed to do so, the manual appeal filed by the appellant is not in the manner prescribed in Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, the manual appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals), even if it is within the time, is invalid and non-est.
Further, the manual appeal is admitted by the Department on 26th April 2016 and the appellant has not received any rejection letter for this appeal. Hence, the appeal would have been pending for disposal, as the then CIT (Appeals) must have uploaded the manual appeal filed by the appellant for faceless disposal by NFAC. However, the appellant has filed the present appeal electronically one more time with a delay of 697 days. So, the same cannot be considered as a valid appeal as two appeals cannot be admitted on the same issue for the same assessment year. Therefore, the present appeal is infructuous and hence, dismissed.” The assessee is in appeal against the CIT(A)’s order dated 21.01.2024 6. before us. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is seen that the appeal was filed in manual format by the assessee well within prescribed time of 30 days which was dismissed for statistical purposes vide order dated 26.03.2018 as it was required to be mandatorily e-filed. The assessee was further advised to file a fresh appeal along with a request for condonation of delay. The assessee duly filed the online appeal without any further delay on 27.03.2018. However, after six years, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this appeal vide order dated 21.01.2024 without deciding the same on merits on account of the delay of 697 days. Admittedly, the manual appeal was filed within time. The manual appeal 7. was dismissed for statistical purposes only and the assessee was required to e- file the appeal once again which was done on the very next day of receipt of appellate order. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing this appeal without adjudication on merits simply on the grounds of delay. We, therefore, A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Nanalal Shah HUF set aside the order of Ld. AO and direct him to decide the same on merits after taking a lenient view of the delay which is on account of dismissal of the physical appeal as discussed above. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.03.2025.