9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of filing of appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) manually i.e. 29.04.2016. CIT (A) chose to dismiss the appeal of the assessee for the sole reason that the appeal before him was not filed in the electronic form although even Circular No. 20/2016 of the CBDT fairly acknowledges that the functionality was operative only from 19.05.2016 in the assessee s case - we fail to understand as to how the Ld. First Appellate Authority could have dismissed the assessee s appeal for no fault on the part of the assessee. Assessee s appeal filed electronically later on i.e. on 10.05.2017 is still pending before the Ld. CIT (A) - thus restore this appeal to the file of the CIT (A) and direct that this appeal be tagged along with the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in fructuous. Against this order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee has approached the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] erred on facts and in law in dismissing appeal preferred by the appellant in limine on the ground that the appellant failed to substitute the said appeal with electronic filing in the prescribed form. 2. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal in limine , without considering the grounds raised by the appellant on merits. 3. Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not providing an opportunity to the appellant to cure the defect before dismissing the appeal in limine . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Systems Ltd., i.e., the assessee company, can claim benefit of deduction under section 80-IC. 6.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that it is extremely difficult to comprehend why Mahle Filter Systems GmbH, who invested heavily and has 50% of the shares of the assessee company will like to merge with the Indian company. 6.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that it is a clear case of tax evasion as the assessee was fully aware that to avail the benefit of deduction under section 80-IC, Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. is required to be merged into Purolator India Ltd. 6.4 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the above transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 80IC of the Act. 6.8 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law and failed to appreciate that aforesaid other income has been derived from business of the undertaking at Parwanoo unit and was eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 6.9 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant has shifted the profits from the head office to the manufacturing unit at Parwanoo since the head office may have incurred expenses in selling the stock amounting to ₹ 22,81,28,082. Re: Reimbursement of expenses disallowed under section 40(a) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source 7. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3.0 The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the reason for not filing the appeal electronically was due to the reason that the e-portal for filing of the appeal was not functioning properly at the point of time the appeal was due for filing. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was served on 31.03.2016 and, therefore, the appeal against the said order had to be filed within 30 days from the date of service and, thus, the limitation for filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was expiring on 30.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Ld. CIT (A) could not have overlooked the mandatory requirement of e-filing of appeals and, therefore, he was justified in dismissing the appeal. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the CBDT notifications referred to above. It is seen that the newly introduced system of appeals before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was introduced from 1st March, 2016 vide Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) had to be filed manually on 29.04.2016 by the assessee because, as per the assessee, eportal for filing the appeals was not functioning properly. This contention of the assessee is supported by the Circular issued by the CBDT dated 26th May, 2016 (Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
