M/S MICRO TUBES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19 (2)(3), MUMBAI

When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, considering the nature of dispute, I proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material on record.

I have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. It is evident, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, as it was not filed in electronic form in terms of rule 45 and 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by The Income Tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 1st March 2016, requiring mandatory filing of Form no.35, electronically. Since, the assessee had filed the appeal manually in paper form, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has treated it as non-est and dismissed the appeal in limine. Of–course, he has given liberty to the assessee to file the appeal electronically with a request for condonation of delay. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues raised in the present appeal back to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to file the appeal electronically, if not already filed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order with an application for condonation of delay. On filing of the appeal in electronic form along with application seeking condonation of delay, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should do well to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. With the aforesaid observations, the grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced through circulation in the notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.