9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this fact and finding it to be incorrect the CIT(A) clearly was in error in stating that being a corporate assessee the return should have been filed electronically. Therefore, dismissal by the CIT(A) of the assessee s appeal, we find was based on incorrect appreciation of the facts. Mere mode of filing appeal - electronically or in physical mode ,alone should not take away the assessee s right to appeal, being just a technical/ procedural aspect that too not mandated by statute but by CBDT notification which has no persuasive value and is binding only on its Revenue Officers.. Therefore also the order of the ld.CIT(A) dismissing the assessee s appeal as not admitted is set aside. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee, being an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter referred to as the Act for short] for the Asst. Year 2013-14. 2. At the outset, it was pointed out that the issue pertains to levy of penalty for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee s appeal has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), as being invalid for the reason that the appeal had been filed manually while it was required to be filed electronically. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that as per the ld.CIT(A), CBDT had issued instruction vide notification No.S.O.637(E) dated 1.3.2016 mandating compulsory filing of the return w.e.f. 1.3.2016 for those required to furnish their return of income electronically. The ld.counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deleted since even on merits the addition made in the case of the assessee had been deleted by the ITAT in entirety vide its order dated 30.10.2015 in ITA No.757/RJT/2014. The ld.DR fairly admitted to this fact. 5. We have heard both the parties. We find that the dismissal by the ld.CIT(A) of the assessee s appeal filed before it manually was highly unjustifiable and was not even in accordance with the notification issued by the CBDT No.S.O.637(E) dated 1.3.2016 as referred to by the ld.CIT(A) himself. As per the said notification, as noted in para 1.2 of the CIT(A) s order, all assesses whose returns were required to be filed electronically, had to file their appeals to the Ld.CIT(A) also electronically. The assessee had demonstrated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. On merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the addition on which penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the ITAT. We have noted from the assessment order, and copy of the penalty order before us that the assessee, being an agent of freight beneficiary M/s LR2 Management K/s -Denmark, had filed various voyage final returns under section 172(3) of the Act without paying freight taxes. The assessee had claimed DTAA benefit vis a vis Denmark for the said purpose, but the AO held that the assessee had wrongly claimed DTAA benefit and accordingly withdrew the same. Thus, 7.5% of the total freight earned in India by the assessee was treated as its taxable income amounting to Rs.1,76,71,602/- and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
