THANWARDAS LALCHAND MOTWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(5), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- 1. “The learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the same is not filed electronically. 2. Without prejudice to above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had subsequently, on 26.11.2018, also filed appeal electronically which is before 13.12.2018, the date of order dismissing appeal, and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Assessment Year: 2013-14 ought to have condoned delay in filing of appeal electronically and decided the appeal on merits. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of claim u/s 54. 4. The appellant prays that: i) Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and he may be directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. ii) Claim for exemption u/s 54 may be allowed. iii) Recovery of demand in dispute may be directed to be stayed till hearing and disposal of the appeal. iv) Appeal may be taken up on hearing on priority basis, v) Any other relief your Honours may deem fit.”

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 03.02.2020. However, on the said date when the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Keeping in view, the issue involved in the appeal, we decided to dispose of this appeal on the basis of the material on record after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).

Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that since the assessee had manually filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the Ld. CIT (A) issued show cause notice to the appellant/assessee and since the Ld. CIT(A) did not receive any reply/response from assessee, the Ld.CIT (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. We have carefully perused the material on record. The Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding as under:-

The Ld. CIT (A) has not mentioned in the order that the show cause notice dated 13.11.2018 was served upon the appellant/assessee. In the case Assessment Year: 2013-14 of Prakash M. Jain vs. ITO AY 2010-11, the coordinate Bench has dealt with the identical issue. In the said case, the assessee had manually filed the appeal before the CIT (A), which was within the limitation period. Subsequently, the assessee also filed the appeal electronically in terms of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which was beyond limitation period. The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by law of limitation. The assessee challenged the impugned order before the Tribunal. The coordinate Bench allowed the appeal of the assessee holding as under:-