MR MADAN MOHAN MISHRA,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(3)(3) , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4161/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently e-filed fresh appeals before the CIT(A) along with a condonation petition. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to be heard along with the e-filed appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed as not maintainable because they were filed manually instead of electronically. The assessee had raised grounds regarding additions of agricultural and house property income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to manual filing, and whether the issues on merits should be adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM &

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Hearing: 23.04.2024Pronounced: 24.04.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 4162/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 4161/Mum/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Mr. Madan Mohan Mishra ITO-10(3)(3) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, R 88 X Industrial Area Industrial Vs. Arun Raballe, Mumbai - 400020. Navi Mumbai-400701 PAN : AABPM3701B Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri S.L. Jain, CA Appellant/Assessee by : Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT Revenue/Respondent by Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17 Mumbai [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 28.08.2018 for the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since the issues contended through various grounds are common, these appeals were heard together and disposed off through common order.

2.

The assessee raised the following grounds for AY 2013-14

“1) On the Facts and circumstances of case and in Law the learned Assessing officer of Income tax erred in law in making addition of agricultural Income of Rs. 15,40,500/- which is exempted income under section (2/A) as a in accurate passiculer which is unjustified.

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case are in law the learned assessing officer of income tax erred in law in making the addition of Rs. 259059/- as house property, which is unjustified.

3) The Assessment under consideration was completed under section 143 (3) of the Act 1961 and the total income was assessed at Rs. 4447030/- against income declared by the assess of Rs. 2875424/-

4) The Learned assessing of the income tax, while completing the assessment the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1540500/- on account of agricultural income which is exempted and Rs. 259059/- as a house property income. Without placing reliance o the submission made by the representative of the appellant and making the disallowance of income claimed not claimed as a exemption on, the learned assessing officer has failed to consider the background of appellant and appreciate the fact that the appellant is owner of land, which is being cultivated in order to prevent cultivated in order to prevent turning barran the appellant prays your honour to kindly delete the additions made on account of exempt income and delete the tax an penalty interest. On the basis of such additions.”

3.

The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for Assessment year (AY) 2013-14 on 14.11.2013 declaring income of Rs. 28,75,424/- and for AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring income of Rs. 33,77,225/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) assessing the income of the assessee for AY 2013-14 at Rs. 44,47,030/- and for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 49,41,050/. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) manually. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and invalid ab-initio for the reason that the appeals were not e-filed. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard are extracted below:

5 The matter has been considered. In its submission, the appellant has submitted that the appeal could not be e-filed due to technical problems but was subsequently e-filed within the transition period. As a matter of fact, no prejudice will be caused to the electronically filed appeal for the year under reference. The issues involved and condonation of delay will be considered at the time of appellate proceedings arising out of e-filed appeal. However, the manual appeal filed is not admissible as per provisions of Section 249(1) of the Act. Hence, this appeal is treated as not maintainable and invalid abinito.

4.

The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has e-filed fresh appeal before the CIT(A) along with the petition to condone the delay and the same is pending before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed that these appeals may be sent back to the CIT(A) to be heard together.

5.

We heard the ld. DR. On perusal of the CIT(A) order we noticed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 as not maintainable for the reason that the appeal is not filed online and did not adjudicate the issue contended on merits. We further notice that in this appeal the assessee is not contending the maintainability of the appeal before the CIT(A) and it is submitted that the assessee has once again filed the appeal afresh before the CIT(A) online contending the same issues along with a condonation petition. In the light of fact and circumstances of the case since the issues contended here are already before the CIT(A) to be considered on merits, we deem it fit to remit the appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 back to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider these appeals together with the appeals e-filed and decide in accordance with law. Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeals for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24-04-2024.

More judgments on Section 249(1)

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →