CHANDANMAL H. BANSALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Even, the assessee has not filed any application seeking adjournment. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and the material available on record.

Brief facts are, the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 26th September 2011, declaring total income of ` 7,58,580. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 28th January 2016, determining the total income at ` 11,03,170. As it appears, against the assessment order so passed, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority within the prescribed period of limitation, though, manually. In view of the amended rule–45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 requiring the assessee to file the appeal in electronic form, learned Commissioner (Appeals) issued a notice to the assessee appraising the aforesaid fact and fixing the date of hearing to 1st May 2018. As observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date fixed for hearing. Subsequently, the assessee filed letter dated 3rd May 2018 making submissions on the merits of the issue raised in the appeal. Being of 3 Shri Chandanmal H. Bhansali the view that the appeal filed by the assessee manually is not admissible as per section 249(1) of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine. However, he permitted the assessee to file the appeal in electronic form with a request for condonation of delay.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As per rule 45, introduced to the statute w.e.f. 1st March 2016, any appeal to be filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 249(1) of the Act, has to be filed in electronic form. Facts on record reveal that the assessee filed the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) manually. It is further evident, in response to the notice of hearing issued by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee did not appear to rectify the defect. Therefore, the defect arising in the appeal due to non–filing in electronic form remained un–removed. Consequently, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. However, he has given liberty to the assessee to file the appeal again electronically with a request for condonation of delay. Considering the above, we direct the assessee to file appeal for the impugned assessment year before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in electronic form, if he has not already filed it. On filing of the appeal in electronic form, learned Commissioner

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.12.2019