What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that during a transition period, technicalities should not override substantial justice. The appeal was therefore set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after allowing e-filing.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for not being filed electronically, as required by Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee argued this was a technical default during a transition period.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed on technical grounds of e-filing during a transition period, violating principles of natural justice and substantial justice.

M/S.Britacel Exports Private… vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Paride, AR

Hearing: 28.11.19Pronounced: 28.11.19

आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-16/ITO-9(2)(2)/IT-640/2015-16 vide order dated 13.07.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(2), Mumbai (in short ITO/ 2 | P a g e Britacel Exports P Ltd. 4873/Mum/2018 AO) for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 10.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has raised the issue as regard to violation of natural justice dismissing the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically i.e. e-filing before CIT(A). For this assessee has raised the following ground: - “

1. Dismissal of appeal for not filing electronically - Rule

45. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal after so many hearing on ground that the appeal was not filed electronically and suffers from technical default as per the mandate of Rule

45. (w.e.f. 01.04.2016) of Income Tax Rules. 1962 which was occurred for the first time: as the Appellant had not committed any breach of tax law; rejecting of hearing on merits and the dismissal of appeal on technical grounds is not justified and the appeal may be restored to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.”

3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour assessee, wherein the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for allowing opportunity to the assessee to file its appeal by way of e-filing and then decide the appeal on merits. The 3 | P a g e Britacel Exports P Ltd. 4873/Mum/2018 Tribunal has consistently remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and particularly in the case of Astrex Reinforced Ltd. vs. ITO in for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 16.05.2018, wherein exactly identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal and the same read as under: - “6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the CBDT has mandated filing of appeal in electronic form after a certain date by issuing notification vide Notification No.SO 637(E) [No.11/2016 (F. No.149/150/2015-TPL)] dated 01.03.16 as per which the assessee is required to file form No.35 electronically. It is also an admitted fact that the CBDT has extended such due date of filing of appeal in electronic mode up to 15.06.16 considering the hardships/technical glitches in filing the appeal electronically. Admittedly, the assessee has filed its appeal in paper form on 29.04.16. The assessee claims that it is unaware of the notification issued by the CBDT for filing appeals in electronic format, therefore, it has filed its appeal in manual form on 29.04.16. The assessee further claims that during transition 4 | P a g e Britacel Exports P Ltd. 4873/Mum/2018 period the provisions of notification should not be applied strictly.

M/S.BRITACEL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(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