SUBHASH V. KUBAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25 (3) (4), MUMBAI

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte order of CIT(A)-37, Mumbai dated 03/10/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3)/ 147 of the IT Act.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

In this case, CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal merely on the plea that under Rule 45, assessee should have filed the appeal online. However, since the assessee has not filed online appeal, the same was dismissed by the CIT(A) without going on merits of the case. From the Shri Subhash V Kubal record we found that assessee has filed the appeal on 25/04/2016 manually as there were technical difficulties with the Government software for filing e-appeals (see CBDT circular no 20 of 2016 – para 3.4 of CIT(A)’s order – this Circular recognises technical hitches in the e-filing on 26/05/2016. CBDT Circular extending dates for e-filing to 15/06/2016 including e-filing of manually filed appeals earlier. Assessee was not aware of this circular and did not file his appeal on line to regularise his earlier manually filed appeal.

CIT(A)-37 issued notice for hearing for 25/09/2017. This notice also sought explanation for appeal filed manually. No defect memo or show cause issued earlier. Thereafter on 25/09/2017 assessee filed e-appeal for regularisation of his manual appeal. The e-appeal also contained plea of condonation of delay in item No.15 of Form 35 filed on line. Assessee also filed in CIT(A)’s office informing him about online appeal so filed and cited technical difficulties faced by the assessee for filing e-appeal in April 2016 for which reason the appeal was filed manually as due date was nearing. However, CIT(A) passed order rejecting manually filed appeal as non-maintanable as e-appeal not filed before extended date of 15/06/2015. The order did not even refer to the online appeal filed on 25/09/2017.

In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing appeal due to technical reasons and do not find any merit for rejection of the assessee’s appeal merely on the plea that it was not e-filed whereas subsequently assessee has filed the appeal in the prescribed form of e-