SHRI. KETAN J. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order dated 26.09.2017 passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) on 24.08.2016. Since, the appeal had been filed manually, vide letter dated 17.08.2017, attention of the appellant was drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) to the notification dated 1st March, 2016 issued by CBDT amending rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which mandates compulsory e-filing the appeals before the Appellate Commissioner w.e.f. 1st March, 2016 in respect of all persons, who are required to furnish their return of income electronically. The Assessment Year: 2013-14 assessee was therefore asked to explain as to why the aforesaid appeal filed by him should not be treated as invalid. The assessee submitted that it had filed the appeal under a bona fide belief that the appeals pertaining to the assessment year prior to 01.03.2016 are required to be filed manually. Further, it was submitted that since the assessee has filed e-appeal on 22.09.2017, the same may be allowed to argue. The Ld. CIT (A) rejecting the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee declaring the appeal filed manually by the assessee as void-ab-initio. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the said order. 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- 1. “Learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed manually for AY 2013-14 against the principal of equity & natural justice. 2. Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the appeal filed by appellant was in time & relevant for the period before 1/3/2016. 3. Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the department has accepted the manual appeal. 4. Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that subsequently appellant has also filed e-appeal. 5. Looking at above facts your appellant prays your honor to kindly direct the CIT (A) to hear the appeal on merits, condone the delay in filling e-appeal”.