- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 4616/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) CONTAINER MOVEMENT (BOMBAY) TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. 26, VASWANI MANSION, 120, DINSHAW VACHCHA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(4), ROOM NO. 1925, 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUM BAI - 400 021 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACC 2891 C ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARSH SHAH / RESPONDENT BY : MS. N. HEMALATHA / D ATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.12 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 54 , MUMBAI (CIT(A) FO R SHORT) DATED 30.03.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I N THIS CASE HOLDING THE APPEAL TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE IS AS UNDER : 2 ITA NO. 4616/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2013 - 14) CONTAINER MOVEMENT (BOMBAY) TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT I N THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL ON 03.03.2016 IN PAPER FORM. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT, RULE 45 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED W.E.F. 01.03.2016 AND THE SAME PROVIDES THAT W.E.F. 01.03.2016, THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL BE MADE IN MODIFIED FORM NO. 35, ELECTRONICALLY, WHERE THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUB RULE (3) OF RU LE 12 IS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY. FURTHER, VIDE CBDT NOTIFICATION NO.11/2016 DATED 01.03.2016, THE FORM NO. 35, IN WHICH THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED, WAS ALSO MODIFIED. 4. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFO RE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT IT WAS A NEW PROCEDURAL CHANGE AND DUE TO CONFUSION AND TECHNICAL GLITCHES , THE ASSEESSEE COULD FILE THE APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM ONLY ON 23 .03.2017. 5. H ENCE , IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE DELAY BE CONDONED . HOWEVER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND D ISMISSED THE APPEAL AS NOT MAIN T AINABLE. 6. AGAINST THIS ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE APPEAL IN P APER FORM WAS DULY FILED. AS IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT C ENTRAL B OARD OF D IRECT T AXES HAD MANDATED THAT HENCE FORTH THE APPEALS WERE TO BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AND TECHNICAL GLITCHES CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED AS UNREASONABLE. 3 ITA NO. 4616/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2013 - 14) CONTAINER MOVEMENT (BOMBAY) TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT MOREOVER . I ALSO NOTE THAT DUE C OMPLIANCE WAS MADE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED HIS ORDER. HENCE , I FIND THAT IN THE SUBSTA NTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE , ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY IN THIS CASE DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY , I CONDONE THE SAME AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHALL PASS AN ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT , THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.12.2017 SD/ - (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 14.12.2017 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI