M/S FIBRE TEXX,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-18(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 147/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the physical appeal was dismissed in limine and not on merits. The electronic appeal was dismissed due to a delay and the misunderstanding that two appeals could not be admitted. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal in physical form, which was dismissed as invalid because it should have been e-filed. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal electronically with a delay of 47 days, which was also dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner on the grounds that two appeals could not be admitted for the same assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed physically which was dismissed as invalid, and subsequently the delayed electronic appeal, could be admitted for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 45,Section 46

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 27.05

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

In the instant case, the assessment order was passed under 143(3) rws 147 of the Act on 23/03/2016 against which the assessee preferred first appeal in physical form within the limitation period as prescribed for filing the appeal in the Act i.e.

2 M/s. Fibre Texx on 20-04-2016 before the Ld. Commissioner. Whereas the said appeal was required to be e-filed in accordance with the procedure enumerated in rules 45 & 46 of the IT Rules, 1962 as substituted by IT (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01.03.2016, whereby filing of appeal before the CIT(A) has been made mandatorily in electronic form (E-file). Hence the appeal file in physical form was dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner as invalid and non-est under Rule 45 of the Rules.

3.

Thereafter the assessee has also filed the first appeal electronically before the Ld. Commissioner but with a delay of 47 days, however, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the same on the ground that the appeal cannot be considered as a valid appeal as two appeals cannot be admitted on the same issue for the same assessment year. The assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.

4.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not the case here that the appeal filed in physical form by the assessee, has been dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner on merit and the Assessee is also precluded from filling the appropriate appeal in electronic form. It is a fact the Assessee’s appeal previously filed in physical mode infact has been dismissed in limine being non- maintainable in physical form as claimed by the assessee. Hence on the aforesaid analyzation, we do not find any justification to sustain the decision of Ld. Commissioner in dismissing the appeal in limine being un-adjudicated. Therefore, for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay, which accordingly is condoned and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

3 M/s. Fibre Texx The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and cooperate with the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant reply/submission/ documents as would be essential/required for proper adjudication of the appeal of the assessee by the Ld. Commissioner. In case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →