HIMANSHU DHIRENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 17 (1)(5), MUMBAI

Briefly stated, assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of trading in Iron & Steel under the name and style

As far as the filing of appeal is concerned, the assessee filed the present appeal manually as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 11-04-2016 and the same was duly acknowledged by the office of ld. CIT(A)-28. The assessee could not upload the appeal electronically as required to be filed pursuant to Income Tax (third amendment) Rules, 2016, substitution of Rule 45 and Notification No. so 637(e) [No.11/2016 F.No.149/150/2015-tpl], dt.01-03-2016 despite making several attempts to upload. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that – due to technical glitches the appeal could not get uploaded successfully and therefore had filed it manually .Assessee also brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that vide Circular No.20/2016, dt.26-05-2016, Central Board of Direct Taxes has clarified in this regard that the filing of appeal is to be made electronically, but, however, due to lack of facilities, there were technical glitches in online uploading and all the appeals that were to be electronically filed by 15-05-2016 were extended upto 15-06-2016 . Thus, the assessee stated before the Ld.CIT(A) that the physical appeals filed would be enough compliance as the date for electronic filing was extended.

However, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeals electronically.

We have heard the rival contentions and material on record. It is a fact that the assessee has filed the present appeals before the CIT(A) manually, though the CBDT vide Circular No.20/2016, dt.26-05-2016, has clearly clarified that all the appeals due to be electronically filed by 15-05-2016 were extended upto 15-06-2016 by a month. We observe that though assessee has not filed the appeal electronically, there is a proper compliance from the assessee to file the appeals physically. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and the interest of justice, we restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the appeal for the AY.2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

As far as the appeals of assessee for the AYs.2010-11 & 2011-12 are concerned, since the facts in these assessment years are identical to one as decided by us for the AY.2009-10 (supra) and therefore our findings in the said appeal would , mutatis mutandis, apply to these appeals as well. Resultantly, these appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु" / CIT, Mumbai 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"यािपत "ित //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asst.