RITESH KUMAR K. BAFNA,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1145/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna, the appellant, contesting the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) on the grounds of late filing. The original assessment order was issued on 15.02.2016, and the appellant filed a physical appeal on 07.04.2016, which was within the permissible time frame. However, due to the introduction of electronic filing by the CBDT in April-May 2016, the appeal was later required to be filed electronically. The appellant filed the appeal electronically on 11.07.2019, which was considered late by the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the initial physical filing was timely and that the subsequent electronic filing was a mere formality, thus setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and restoring the matter for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 102867 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADNYA GHOLAP
• Assessee Lawyers: K.J. BAFNA
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1145/Mum/2025 (AY 2010-11) (physical hearing) Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna Flat No. 102, Pratikash Tower, B Wing R.S. Nimkar Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400008. PAN: AABPB 7160 M Vs. ITO – 20(3)(1) Piramal Chamber, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.J. Bafna, AR Revenue by : Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.04.2025 Order Under section 254(1) of Income tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.01.2025 for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned AddI/JCIT (A) II, Delhi (herein after referred to as CIT (A) only) erred in holding that appeal is filed late & dismissing the appeal. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) failed to consider that Assessment Order dt. 15/02/2016 was received on 12/03/2016 & physical appeal was filed on 7/04/20116 which was very much in time allowed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The CIT (A) ought to have consider that physical appeal is filed in time & should have passed the order on merits. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in observing that appellant has filed the appeal only on 11.7.2019 ignoring the fact that appeal was physically filed on 7.4.2016 & further observing that delay has not been explained by sufficient ITA No. 1145/Mum/2025 Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna A.Y. 2010-11 2 cause ignoring the fact that two applications were filed on 11/07/2019 & 01/02/2021 explaining sufficient cause of not filling the appeal electronically. 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) ought to have taken the lenient view that to file the appeal electronically was NEW PROVISION W.E.F. 1.3.2016 & hence lost sight of new amended rule & this appeal was filed physically on 07.04.2016 i.e. just after the introduction of new provision 6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) ought have condone the delay in interest of natural justice in view of our two applications by taking lenient view that e-filling of appeal is a matter of procedure only. 7. Your appellant pray add/amend/alter/delete any grounds of appeal on or before date of the hearing.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that assessment order, in case of assessee was passed on 15.02.2016. On receipt of assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 07.04.2016. The appeal was filed within time period from the receipt of assessment order. Copy of acknowledgement of filing appeal of ld. CIT(A) – 32, Mumbai is filed on record. In the month of April-May, 2016 the department / Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) introduced the system of filing appeal electronically. The assessee received a notice from ld. CIT(A) for filing appeal electronically in the first week of month of July 2019. The assessee filed appeal electronically on 11.07.2019. However, the appeal of assessee was treated as filed belatedly i.e. after 1214 days of passing the assessment order. The appeal of assessee was dismissed as unadmitted resultantly. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in a number of decisions ITA No. 1145/Mum/2025 Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna A.Y. 2010-11 3 on similar circumstances, when the assesses were facing difficulty in filing appeal electronically or were not aware about filing appeal electronically, similar delay in filing appeal was condoned. In fact, the assessee has filed appeal in physical form well in time and on filing appeal electronically on 11.07.2016, the delay for technical reason should have been condoned. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated various grounds of appeal on merit, therefore, technical delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decide the appeal on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if he is given an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that after introduction of system for filing appeal electronically, the assessee was required to file appeal as per scheme framed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The assessee has not followed due process formulated by CBDT. However, on confronting the fact that assessee has filed appeal in physical form well in time and ultimately appeal by way of electronically means was also filed, the ld. Sr. DR submits if this bench of this view that delay was not intentional delay in filing appeal, in electronic mode, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merit. 4. I have considered the contentions of both the parties and have gone through the order of ld. CIT(A). I find that assesse has filed appeal in a physical manner on 07.04.2016. The assessee also filed appeal electronically on ITA No. 1145/Mum/2025 Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna A.Y. 2010-11 4 11.07.2016 as has been acknowledged by ld. CIT(A) in his order. The ld. CIT(A) also acknowledged the fact that assessee filed various reply in response to various notices issued by him. However, the appeal was dismissed on technical reason that it was filed belatedly i.e. after 1214 days of period of limitation. I find that there was no delay in filing physical appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee also filed appeal electronically on 11th July 2019. I find that once the appeal was filed in physical form in time, filing appeal in electronic way was another formality. In fact, there was no delay in filing appeal in time. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) is not on merit and the impugned order is already set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate various grounds of appeal on merit. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15 .04.2025 at the time of hearing. Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 15.04.2025 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. ITA No. 1145/Mum/2025 Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna A.Y. 2010-11 5 Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "