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

Both the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the appeals were filed by assessee manually process, as assessee was not aware about e-filing system. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) did not admit both the appeals in view of the extended window for filing e-appeals, taxpayers who could not successfully e-file appeal. The appeals are required to file an e-appeal in accordance with Rule 45 before the extended period i.e. 15.06.2016. Therefore, in absence of electronically filed appeals the Ld.CIT(A) unadmitted and dismissed both the appeals of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in A.Y 2010-11, there was no awareness about filling the appeal electronically and the assessee used to file the appeal manually. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the assessee was not known about registered e-mail and whom to file the appeal electronically. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that, just because the assessee has filed the appeal manually before the Ld. CIT(A) does not mean that the justice should be denied to him. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given to assessee to contest his case before ld CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future and to file all necessary details and evidence on first date of hearing, before the ld. CIT(A). 4. 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.” 6. 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