M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES,MULUND WEST V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

ITA 454/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Manisha Rubber Enterprises appealing against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds for not being filed electronically as required by a CBDT circular. A subsequent appeal was also dismissed due to a significant delay, which the assessee attributed to incorrect professional advice and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the electronically filed appeal on merits, given that the original appeal was timely filed in physical form.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26675 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R. MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 454/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/s. Manisha Rubber Enterprises 50, Unique Industrial Estate, Dr. R. P. Road, Mulund (w), Mumbai-400080 v/s. बिधम ITO, Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAFM6198D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Satyaprakash Singh रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri R. R. Makwana सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 13.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: P a g e | 2 ITA No. 454/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2010-11 M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES “1. The order dated 21/10/2024 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069808416[1] passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Honourable CIT[A], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. The delay in filing of present appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal may be decided accordingly. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs.1,60,638/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271[1][c] of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a manual appeal on 28.04.2016 against the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.05.2019 on the technical ground that the appeal was required to be filed electronically as per the Central Board of Direct Tax [CBDT] circulation No. 50637 (E) [(No.11/2016) (F. No. 149/150/2015-TPL)] dated 01.03.2016. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] on 04.03.2021. However, there was a delay of 1770 days in filing this appeal, hence, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same vide order dated 21.10.2024 on the ground that the assessee could not successfully demonstrate any reasonable cause for the substantial delay. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee had filed the appeal in physical mode against the penalty order dated 23.03.2016 in time. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same on technical grounds after a period of almost 3 years. Subsequently, the assessee also filed the appeal electronically after a delay of 1770 days on P a g e | 3 ITA No. 454/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2010-11 M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES 04.03.2021. As per the affidavit filed by the assessee, it has been explained that the delay was on account of incorrect professional advice from a chartered accountant that no action was required in respect of the said order of Ld. CIT(A) as a fresh order would be passed by the Ld. AO. Further, it has been explained that for the period from March 2020 onwards, due to Covid pandemic, there was a delay in seeking correct professional advice regarding filing of fresh appeal. Since it is an admitted fact that the original appeal had been filed well within the due time, although in a physical mode. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal filed electronically on merits instead of dismissing it in limine on account of delay. We, therefore, restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits in light of the above facts. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 20.03.2025 अननक ेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT P a g e | 4 ITA No. 454/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2010-11 M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "