PEARL FINANCE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(5), MUMBAI

The preliminary issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and on the technical ground that the appeal was not filed electronically.

I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. It transpires that subsequent to the order of the Assessing Officer in this case the assessee has preferred appeal before learned CIT(A). In his appellate order learned CIT(A) noted that there was request for adjournment. Thereafter learned CIT(A) noted that for the present assessment year assessee was supposed to file appeal electronically, but learned CIT(A) noted that assessee has filed appeal manually. It was submitted that the same could not be done because of technical glitches. Learned CIT(A) rejected this and accordingly dismissed the appeal in limine.

Upon careful consideration, I find that it has been settled law that learned CIT(A) should decide upon the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Secondly, it is noted that this was the first year in which it was mandated that assessee was to file appeal in electronic mode. However, assessee’s plea is that there were some technical glitches and due to this return was filed manually. I note that it is settled law that in the web of hypertechnicalties justice should not taken the backseat. Moreover, ITAT in similar case in ITAT No. 7134/Mum/2017 vide order dated 4.5.2018 has remitted the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate upon the merits of the case.

Accordingly, in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, I remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order upon adjudication of the issues raised in the appeal after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 17.6.2019.