M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES,MULUND WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

PDF · subscribers
ITA 454/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 March 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the original appeal was filed within time, albeit in a physical mode. The CIT(A) should have considered the electronically filed appeal on merits instead of dismissing it solely on the ground of delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a manual appeal against a penalty order in time, but it was dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds for not being filed electronically. The assessee subsequently filed an electronic appeal after a significant delay of 1770 days, attributing it to incorrect professional advice and the Covid pandemic. This second appeal was also dismissed by the CIT(A) due to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of delay, considering the original appeal was filed within time and there were extenuating circumstances for the subsequent delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Hearing: 13.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 13.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 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 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2010-11.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

A.Y. 2010-11 M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES “1. The order dated 21/10/2024 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069808416[1] passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Honourable CIT[A], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed.

2.

The delay in filing of present appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal may be decided accordingly.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs.1,60,638/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271[1][c] of Income Tax Act, 1961.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a manual appeal on 28.04.2016 against the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.05.2019 on the technical ground that the appeal was required to be filed electronically as per the Central Board of Direct Tax [CBDT] circulation No. 50637 (E) [(No.11/2016) (F. No. 149/150/2015-TPL)] dated 01.03.2016. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] on 04.03.2021. However, there was a delay of 1770 days in filing this appeal, hence, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same vide order dated 21.10.2024 on the ground that the assessee could not successfully demonstrate any reasonable cause for the substantial delay. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee had filed the appeal in physical mode against the penalty order dated 23.03.2016 in time. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same on technical grounds after a period of almost 3 years. Subsequently, the assessee also filed the appeal electronically after a delay of 1770 days on A.Y. 2010-11 M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES 04.03.2021. As per the affidavit filed by the assessee, it has been explained that the delay was on account of incorrect professional advice from a chartered accountant that no action was required in respect of the said order of Ld. CIT(A) as a fresh order would be passed by the Ld. AO. Further, it has been explained that for the period from March 2020 onwards, due to Covid pandemic, there was a delay in seeking correct professional advice regarding filing of fresh appeal. Since it is an admitted fact that the original appeal had been filed well within the due time, although in a physical mode. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal filed electronically on merits instead of dismissing it in limine on account of delay. We, therefore, restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits in light of the above facts.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.03.2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →