RAJESH NANALAL SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

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:

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.