Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
In the ground raised
in this appeal, the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to condone the delay in e-filing the appeal when the manual appeal was filed in time. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted by the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.1,37,70,080/- being 25% of the alleged bogus purchase of Rs.5,50,80,322/-.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed appeal manually in paper form on 27.05.2016 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), referring to the Notification No. S.O.637(E) dated 01.03.2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi, observed that e-filing of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner is compulsory w.e.f. 01.03.2016 in respect of all persons who are required to furnish their return of income electronically. Since the assessee is a company and it filed its appeal after 01.03.2016 not electronically, the Ld. CIT(A) treated the appeal filed manually as non- est and dismissed the appeal for statistical purpose.
4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that in the instant case, the appeal was filed within the time prescribed as per the Act and the e-filing of the said appeal was only a technical default which was subsequently rectified by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. counsel files a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Pragna Manish Chheda v. ITO (ITA No. 1631/Mum/2018 for AY 2010- 11) and All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. ITO (ITA No. 7134/Mum/2017 for AY 2013-14). On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the above issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the