What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, acknowledging the technicalities of electronic filing and the amendment's effective date. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and comply with rules.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as non-est because it was filed in paper form instead of electronically, as required by amended Rules 45 & 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee claimed ignorance of the new electronic filing procedure.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed in paper form after the amendment mandating electronic filing is maintainable. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to rectify the procedural defect.

Komal Surendra Hiranandani vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR REHMAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, DR

Pronounced: 29/10/2020

आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI PAVANKUMAR GADALE JM:

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai passed u/sec143(3) and 250 of the Act.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the Mum 2019-Komal Surendra Hiranandani. - 2 - assessee’s appeal as nonest, because the assessee has not filed Form-35 electronically as per the procedure laid down under Rule 45 & 46 of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Whereas, the assessee has filed the reply on 5.03.2019 on the above issues which was overlooked and order was passed by CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that the assessee be provided one more opportunity toappear before the CIT(A) and prayed for allowing the appeal.

Contra, the DR submitted that the assessee should mandatorily file the appeal electronically.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is that the assessee has filed the appeal in paper form on 22.04.2016. Further, we find that as per the amendment and procedure laid down under Rule 45 & 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 01.03.2016. The appeal in Form No. 35 has to be filed electronically, whereas the assessee has filed the appeal in paper form on 22.04.2016 as she was not aware of the technicalities in filing the appeal Mum 2019-Komal Surendra Hiranandani. - 3 - electronically. Therefore, the appellate authority has treated the appeal as non-est and dismissed. Wehave considered the fact of technicalities in filing the appeal electronically and the amendment effective from 01.03.2016. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information and comply with appeal filling Rules for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced on 29.10.2020, in the open court.

KOMAL SURENDRA HIRANANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 19 (2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments