JITENDRAKUMAR AMRITLAL KALIDAS SHAH,DUBAI vs. AC / DC (INT.TXN) , RAJKOT

On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in manual procedure. In the method, prescribed by the CBDT, and CBDT has especially announced that appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) are to be filed electronically. Therefore, there was breach of duty on the part of the assessee not to file the appeal electronically before the Ld. CIT(A).

I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed and unadmitted as non-est both the appeals of the assessee and observed as follows: “8.3 Thus, the time period for filing e-appeals was extended and the persons who had filed the appeal on paper (manually) were allowed additional time to e-file the said appeal upto 15.06.2016. In this case, it is seen that the appellant was required to file Rol electronically in accordance with Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules. So, it's case does not fall in the exempt clause of Rule 45(2)(b). He was mandatorily required to electronically file the appeal in accordance with the provision of Rule 45(2)(a)/(b) without a condonation petition upto 15/06/2016 and with condonation petition after that date. The appeal was filed on paper, manually. No electronic appeal was filed on a later date. Therefore, in the absence of electronically filed appeal, the aforesaid appeal is non-est and dismissed.”

I find that the assessee has filed both appeals manually, and I noted that since 2016, was a beginning period of implementing rules which were introduced, in Income Tax Act Rule to file the appeal electronically. In 2016, since it was beginning period to file the appeal electronically before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee filed manually, which does not mean that the assessee should be deprived from the justice. I find that the assessee filed both appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) in manually and not as per the rule 12 of the Income Tax Act Rules, however, the facts remain that assessee should not be denied justice just because of these procedural formalities. I also noted that, in year 2016 it was just beginning and there was not much awareness about the filing the appeal electronically before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, just because the assessee filed manually, does not mean that the assessee denied for justice. Because of this small breach or mistake by the assessee not to file appeal as per Rules 12 of the Income Tax Rules, the justice should not be denied to assessee. I find that before me, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has made a limited prayer for restoring the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons that assessee could not e-file his appeals before Ld.CIT(A) due to unawareness about e-filing system. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and undertaking by ld. Counsel of the assessee that assessee will be more vigilant in future in Page | 3 -153 /Rjt/2025 AYs: 10-11 & 12-13 Jitendrakumar A. K Shah making compliance, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merit, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. I find that after all justice not only to be done, it is seen to be done. Therefore, I set aside both the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to admit both the appeals of assessee and adjudicate the appeals on merit. Needless to direct that before passing order afresh, the Ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and to make timely compliance of the notice issued by Ld.CIT(A). With these directions, the grounds of appeal