Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring nil income. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,50,93,030/-, rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 11. The assessee filed an appeal manually before the CIT(A) after the due date, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the manual appeal was correct because it was filed after the amended provisions required electronic filing. Therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal was also not maintainable. The assessee was directed to e-file the appeal before the CIT(A) with a condonation of delay application.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed manually by the assessee before the CIT(A) was maintainable, and consequently, whether the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable.
Sections Cited
143(3), 11, 250, 249(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 24.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2025 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-1 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 26.11.2018 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 M/s Sameeksha Trust “1) The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in not appreciating that failure to file the appeal electronically is, at best, a procedural defect and rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the reply filed by the Appellant- assessee on 22nd November 2018 and declining to grant an opportunity to rectify the error. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court party that a party cannot be refused just relief, merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply AIR 1969 SC 1267) 4) It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given the assessee a reasonable time to cure defects, as held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Malani Trading Co. vs CIT 252 ITR 670 (Bom). 5) The Appellant craves leave to add to or amend or alter the aforesaid grounds before the disposal of appeal as they may think fit by themselves or by their representatives.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring nil income on 28.09.2013. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,50,93,030/-, after rejecting the claim assessee for exemption u/s 11 of the Act, vide order u/s 143(3) dated 30.03.2016.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal in manual form before Ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2016. Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 26.11.2018, dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “3.6. In view of the above, as the appellant was mandatorily required to file the appeal electronically in the first instance as per the amended provisions of Rule 45 of I.T. Rule 1962 which came in to effect from 01.03.2016 and as extended by Circular No. 20 dated 26.05.2016 which was not complied with, the manual appeal filed is not admissible as per provisions of Section 249(1) of the Act. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as the same is not maintainable. As a result, the manual appeal is treated as dismissed. The appellant is free to e-file the appeal once again with a request for condonation of delay.”
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 05.02.2025 after a delay of 2263 days.
A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Sameeksha Trust 6. At the outset, it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) had directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically while dismissing the manual appeal. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee should have filed the appeal once again electronically. Instead, the assessee has chosen to file further appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that the present appeal is not maintainable. The assessee is directed to e-file the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) as per the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) along with an application for condonation of delay.
It is also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) himself has taken more than two years to pass the order dated 26.11.2018, dismissing the manual appeal which was filed within time on 27.04.2016. He may, therefore, take a lenient view while deciding the condonation of delay in this case keeping in view the reasons explained by the assessee in its condonation petition.