2024 (6) TMI 685 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of physical/manual filing of appeal - submission made by assessee that assessee was not in a position to take assistance regarding e-filing of appeal and he had not completed the requirements of E-filing of appeal i.e. PAN and Aadhar link as well as update of e-mail address - HELD THAT - Undisputed fact that assessee has filed the appeal physically on 24.01.19 which was before the due date of filing the appeal . Further we note admittedly the scheme of physical filing of appeal was replaced by electronic /online w.e.f. 01.03.2016 vide rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules. Since there was some difficulty in e-filing CBDT has taken due cognizance of such difficulty and extended the time limit vide its circular No 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. Thus Ld. CIT(A) should have accepted the appeal and decided the appeal on merits. Based on these set of facts the appeal of the assessee was filed in time in physical mode and merely same was not filed online the same cannot held invalid. Thus we are of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee is required to be admitted and decided on merits therefore we remanded back the matter to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of manual filing of appeal.
2. Addition of Rs. 14,50,000/- as unexplained income.
3. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80DD.
4. Legality of proceedings u/s 148.

Summary:

1. Validity of Manual Filing of Appeal:
The assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for being filed manually instead of online, as mandated by Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1961, and Circular No. 20/2016. The assessee argued that due to old age and health issues, he could not e-file the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed in time physically and should not be invalidated merely for not being filed online. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

2. Addition of Rs. 14,50,000/- as Unexplained Income:
The AO added Rs. 14,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained income from other sources, as the assessee failed to explain the sources of deposits in the bank account. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue due to the remand for fresh adjudication by the ld. CIT(A).

3. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80DD:
The AO disallowed the deduction of Rs. 50,000/- claimed u/s 80DD due to lack of documentary evidence. Similar to the previous issue, the Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this due to the remand for fresh adjudication by the ld. CIT(A).

4. Legality of Proceedings u/s 148:
The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 as bad in law and on facts. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue due to the remand for fresh adjudication by the ld. CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given sufficient opportunity for hearing.