M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES,MULUND WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 454/MUM/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11)
M/s. Manisha Rubber
Enterprises
50, Unique Industrial
Estate, Dr. R. P. Road,
Mulund (w),
Mumbai-400080
v/s.
बिधम
ITO, Ward 41(2)(3),
Mumbai
Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-
43, G Block, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-400051
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFM6198D
Appellant/अपीलधर्थी
..
Respondent/प्रनिवधदी
निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by:
Shri Satyaprakash Singh
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by:
Shri R. R. Makwana
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:
P a g e | 2
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.”
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 P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2010-11
M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES
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. RAHUL CHAUDHARY RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
दिन ुंक /Date 20.03.2025
अननकेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो
आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2010-11
M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES
विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यानित प्रनत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt.