VAMA PVT LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAMA DEPARTMENT SORE PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Shri Prakash Jotwani appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) solely on the ground that in Form No.35 assessment year has been mentioned as 2014-15 instead of assessment year 2012-13. The wrong assessment year mentioned in Form No.35 has not been rectified, rather there is no provision to revise the Form electronically. The ld.Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that at the time of filing first appeal before the CIT(A) electronically, while punching the assessment year instead of assessment year 2012-13 the assessment year was wrongly mentioned as assessment year 2014-15. The error in punching assessment year was absolutely bonafide. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely for the reason that wrong assessment year has been mentioned in Form No.35 filed electronically,the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in so far as other columns mentioned inform No.35 viz. appeal details, which includes amount of income assessed, total addition of income, etc. the amounts have been correctly recorded. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee by taking a hyper-technical view in mentioning wrong assessment year in Form No.35. The ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed that the assessee would diligently pursue the appeal before the CIT(A) if an opportunity is granted and the appeal is restored back to the CIT(A) with appropriate directions.

Shri S.N.Kabra representing the Department supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in the impugned order that there is no provision to revise the Form No. 35 electronically.

Both sides heard, impugned order examined. A perusal of Form No 35 filed before CIT(A) electronically reveals that against the column of assessment year, 2014-15 has been mentioned instead of 2012-13. In so far as other details viz. the order against which appeal is filed, amount of income assessed, total addition, etc. the same are purportedly in order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous merely for the reason that wrong assessment year has been mentioned in Form No.35.

We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has taken a pedantic and hyper- technical view of the punching error in mentioning wrong assessment year in Form No.35. It is a well settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of justice deserves to be preferred. The rules of procedure are meant as hand made of justice for attaining of justice in an orderly manner. It is a trite law that where the rules result in unjustice, absurdity or travesty of its purpose the Courts give it a go by. Thus, taking into consideration, entirety of facts and the larger cuase of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. The CIT(A) shall allow the assessee to rectify the error in mentioning correct assessment year in Form No.35 electronically by filing revised form or manually, if former is not practically feasible.

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.