TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the manual appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) is valid appeal and e-appeal need not be filed as mandated and thereby remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in ignoring Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules mandating filing of e-appeal with effect from 01.3.2016 and Board Circular No.20/ 2016 dated 11.7.2019 extending the time for filing of e-appeal only till 15.6.2016 ? A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l only by way of e-filing with effect from 01.3.2016. This due date was extended upto 15.6.2016. 6. It appears from the office records of the CIT(A) that the assessee filed an appeal petition in Form No.35 instead of e-filing the appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) proposed to treat the appeal as non est and called upon the assessee to state as to whether they filed any appeal electronically and if so, the same might be brought to the notice of the office of the CIT(A) immediately along with a copy of such e-filed appeal within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which, the manual appeal filed would be treated as invalid and disposed of accordingly. 7. It has been stated in the order passed by the CIT(A) that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee was non est in view of the embargo under Rule 45 of the Rules. It is further contended that the assessee cannot plead ignorance of law especially when they are assisted by professionals and that there was no reason for the Tribunal to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). 9. Per contra, Mr.James, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.John Kennady, learned counsel on record for the respondent - assessee has sought to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal and contended that the manual appeal in Form No.35 was filed well within the period of limitation, that the CIT(A) did not intimate the assessee for over three years, that only on 13.12.2018, a notice was sent and that this aspect was rightly taken note of by the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evance in some cases. 13. Therefore, the matter was examined by the CBDT and noting that while the underlying issues relating to e-filing of appeals had since been addressed and resolved, in order to mitigate any inconvenience caused to the tax payers on account of the new requirement of mandatory e-filing of the appeals, it was decided to extend the time limit for filing such e-appeals. In the light of the above, the CBDT directed that e-appeals, which were due to be filed by 15.5.2016, could be filed upto 15.6.2016 and that all e-appeals filed within this extended period would be treated as appeals filed in time. The CBDT further noted that in view of the extended window for filing e-appeals, taxpayers, who could not successfully e-file ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the office of the CIT(A). 16. The assessee was made known that the manual appeal filed in Form 35 would not be entertained only when the notice was issued by the CIT(A) dated 13.12.2018 and that too, after a period of three years. The contents of the show cause notice clearly show that in so far as e-filing of the appeals is concerned, the office of the CIT(A)/ jurisdictional CIT(A) was not aware as to whether the assessee filed any appeal electronically or not. This is precisely the reason as to why in the show cause notice, the assessee was informed to bring to the notice of the office of the CIT(A) as to whether they filed any appeal or not. 17. Thus, it appears that at the relevant point of time, the process of integration was ....