SANJAY GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1097/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now filed the appeal in the prescribed electronic format, the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the appeal after granting an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in electronic filing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal manually with the CIT(A) within the limitation period. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as invalid because it was not filed electronically as per the amended rules. The assessee subsequently filed the appeal electronically.

What were the issues?

Whether a manually filed appeal, when electronic filing is mandatory, can be considered valid. Whether the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits after the assessee rectifies the filing procedure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal Bhutta
For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31/03/2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–50, Mumbai [‘learned CIT(A)’], for the assessment year 2013–14.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:

“1) Ground No.1: The appellant filed his appeal on 22 April 2016 in paper form, apparently the tax representative of the appeal was not aware of the change of filing appeal in electronic form which came into effect on 1 March, 2016. The appellant is a fim director and producer and has absolutely no Sanjay Gupta ITA No.1097/Mum./2022 knowledge of these technical things. He relies on his tax representatives for handling his tax matters. 2) Ground No.2: Immediately on receipt of the CIT(A) Order De 31 March, 2022, the appellant has filed the appeal in electronic form to rectify this mistake made earlier by the appellant's tax representative in the year 2016. 3) Ground No.3: Charging interests u/ss 2348 and 2340 of the Act. The appellant denies his liability in respect of the same. It is prayed that the Order of the CIT(A) dt 31 March 2022 be set a side with the direction to hear the appeal for A.Y.2013-14 afresh. The appellant craves leave to add to, to alter or to amend the above Grounds of Appeal.”

3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the dismissal of its appeal by the learned CIT(A) on the basis that same has not been electronically filed as per the provisions of section 249 r/w Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’).

4.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (‘learned AR’), at the outset, submitted that the assessment order dated 22/03/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act was received by the assessee on 04/04/2016 and the assessee filed the appeal manually before the learned CIT(A) on 22/04/2016 i.e., within the prescribed limitation period. However, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31/03/2022 dismissed the appeal manually filed by the assessee on the basis that same is in paper form and not verified in the prescribed manner as per provisions of section 249 of the Act and therefore cannot be considered as a valid appeal. It is further submitted that the assessee, immediately thereafter, electronically filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 05/05/2022, which is pending consideration before the learned CIT(A). Page | 2

Sanjay Gupta ITA No.1097/Mum./2022

5.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (‘learned DR’) submitted that learned CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal manually filed by the assessee as the same was not in the prescribed manner.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A). It is also an admitted fact that the appeal initially filed by the assessee was within the limitation period. We find that the assessee instead of filing the appeal electronically, as per the provisions of Rule 45 as amended with effect from 01/03/2016, filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) in paper form on 22/04/2016. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31/03/2022 dismissed the appeal manually filed by the assessee, by observing as under:

“4.3 In light of the above, the present appeal filed in paper form and not verified in the prescribed manner as per the provisions of Section 249 of the Act cannot be considered as valid appeal and it is treated as invalid, ab initio. Accordingly, there would be no cause to examine any other aspect of this appeal. Before parting, it would be worthwhile to mention that there is no bar to file the appeal again before the CIT(A) by ensuring the compliance to the statutory provisions stipulated in the section 249 of the Act read with Rule 45 of the Rules. In the result, the present appeal under consideration is held to be INVALID. For statistical purposes, it is treated as DISMISSED.”

7.

Thereafter, the assessee immediately filed the appeal electronically on 05/05/2022 before the learned CIT(A) and also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal through online process. In this regard, learned AR placed on record the e-filing acknowledgement along with Form No. 35 as electronically filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A).

Sanjay Gupta ITA No.1097/Mum./2022

8.

Since the assessee now has filed the appeal in the prescribed format as per the relevant Rules, therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal so filed by the assessee on merits after granting the opportunity to the assessee to explain the reason for delay in filing the same. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/11/2022

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →