M/S MICRO TUBES, Mumbai V. ITO WARD 19 (2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1837/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0351 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC III BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I TA NO. 18 37 /MUM. /2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 12 ) M/S. MICRO TUBES C/O M/S. JAGDISH BANSAL AND ASSOCIATES 12131, NAVJEEVAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING NO.3, LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI 400 008 PAN AAGFM4351A . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(3), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : S MT. KAVITA P KAUSHIK DATE OF HEARING 1 8 . 0 6 .20 20 DATE OF ORDER 22.06.2020 O R D E R TH E AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 2 ND MAY 2018 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 7 , MUMBAI, F O R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12. 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF DISPUTE, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE AP PEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2 M/S. MICRO TUBES 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE, AS IT WAS NOT FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORM IN TERMS OF RULE 45 AND 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, AS SUBSTITUTED BY THE INCOME TAX ( THIRD AMENDMENT ) RULES, 2016, W.E.F. 1 ST MARCH 201 6, REQUIRING MANDATORY FILING OF FO RM NO.35, ELECTRONICALLY. S INCE , THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY IN PAPER FORM, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS TREATED IT AS NON - EST AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL I N LIMINE. OF COURSE, HE HAS GIVEN LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITH A REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDE R OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES RAISED I N T HE PRESENT APPEAL BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEK S FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER WITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. O N FILING OF THE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM ALONG WITH APPLICATION S EEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOULD DO WELL TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3 M/S. MICRO TUBES 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED THROUGH CIRCULATION IN THE NOTICE BOARD UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 . S SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22.06.2020 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE C I T(A); (4) THE C I T, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI