SYED SAJID ALI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

At the outset, learned AR submitted that on the ground of filing the appeal in paper format, but not e-filing, the learned CIT(A) refused to entertain the appeal and dismissed the same in limine, observing that if the assessee files the appeal through e-filing after the due date there shall be a request to condone the delay. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the learned CIT(A) relied upon the Circular dated 26/05/2016 issued one month after the filing of the appeal on 27/04/2016, but at no point of time, the learned CIT(A) adverted to this discrepancy so that the assessee could have complied with the Circular dated 26/05/2016 and since this appeal was filed shortly after the shift of filing appeals through e-filing, this discrepancy occurred.

Per contra, learned DR submitted that Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) mandates the compulsory e-filing of appeals before the learned CIT(A) with effect from 01/03/2016 and the CBDT extended the time limit upto 15/06/2016, but the assessee failed to avail the same and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was right in rejecting the appeal and not adjudicating the matter on merits.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. A reading of the Circular dated 26/05/2016 shows that there were certain issues in the process of e-filing between 01/03/2016 and 26/05/2016 that is the period covering the date of filing of this appeal before the learned CIT(A), and that is the reason why the time was extended. Grievance of the assessee is that the circular missed their attention and at no point of time, the issue relating to the delay is raised and entertaining the appeal for about two years, the learned CIT(A) refused to adjudicate the same.

In these circumstances, we find force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was laboring under misconception that the appeal was validly pending before the learned CIT(A) and that is the reason why they did not resort to e-filing, and given an opportunity, the assessee would e-file the appeal. Learned AR submitted that the assessee was prosecuting the appeal in a wrong format and, therefore, the delay may be condoned. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) well within the time, but in a wrong format, the delay in e-filing could be condoned and the assessee could be permitted to e-file the appeal. On this premise, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, if the assessee e-files the appeal within ten days from the date of this order.