METCALFE & HODGKINSON INSURANCE SURVEYORS AND LOSS ASSESSORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1. That the CIT(Appeals) has erred by dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed in manual form without appreciating the fact that the appeal could not be filed electronically due to system fault and therefore the petitioners pray that the order be set aside and appeal be restored. A.Y.2013-14

2. That the CIT (Appeals) has erred by dismissing the appeal without appreciating the fact that the appeal was filed manually on 25.4.2016 and could not be filed electronically due to system fault and the Circular No.20 was issued much later on 26.5.2016 extending the date to 15.6.2016 for electronic filing of appeal and therefore the petitioners being under the bona fide impression that once the appeal in manual form is accepted, there is no requirement to file the appeal once again in electronic form, pray that the order be set aside and the appeal be restored.

3. That the CIT (Appeals) has erred by dismissing the appeal without giving an opportunity of hearing and had the opportunity been given, the appeal would have been filed electronically and therefore the petitioners pray that non-filing of appeal electronically being only a technical issue and the appeal having been filed in time, the petitioners pray that the order beset aside and the appeal be restored.

4. That the CIT (Appeals) has erred by dismissing the appeal on the assumption that the Chartered Accountant was not aware of the Rules, however, admitting the fact without accepting the same as the portal was not accepting digital signature and the assessee having filed the appeal through the offices of chartered accountants well within time, a serious and grave injustice would be caused for no fault of the assessee and therefore the petitioners pray that the order be set aside and appeal be restored. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and in the alternative. Your petitioners crave leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of final hearing of appeal.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.91,09,890/-. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 03.09.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.07.2015 & 31.12.2015 were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was engaged in the business of A.Y.2013-14 Marine survey, common survey of buyers and sellers for quantity and quality, supervision of lifting, discharge and delivery of over dimensioned cargo/heavy lift including inspection and modification of barges to transport such cargoes and also undertakes all types of container surveys, supervision of salvaging and reconstitution of cargo after damage to cargo dry & liquid bulk cargo surveys, LPG/LNG & Ammonia Gas Surveys in Tankers. On verification, it was noticed that the assessee had deducted the PF amount in sum of Rs.22,31,398/- and paid in sum of Rs.687065/- with the due date of 15th of the next month. Hence balance in sum of Rs.1544333/- was added to the income of the assessee. Assessee had also debited the interest in sum of Rs.85611/- which was also disallowed and the total disallowance on this head was to the tune of Rs.16,29,944/-. The assessee had also debited the interest on service tax of Rs.135532/- which was also disallowed u/s 37 of the Act. The claim of the Diwali Bonus in sum of Rs.49,807/- and Donation in sum of Rs.1,050/- and claim of loss of cash by theft in sum of Rs.40,000/- were also disallowed. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,08,30,170/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. In fact, the Ld. Representative of the assessee did not appear before us. On appraisal of the order passed by the CIT(A), we noticed that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law,