BIPIN JAKHARIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-29(1)(2), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) noticed that rule 45 of I.T. Rules 1962 mandating compulsory e-filing of appeals before CIT(A) with effect from 1stMarch 2016, therefore Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limini by holding that mandatory requirement of e-filing of appeal have Bipin Jakharia, not been fulfilled by the assessee. Therefore the appeal filed manually was not treated as valid appeal and hence the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

Bipin Jakharia, As per the facts of the present case, the assessment in the above case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961. However the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in paper form as prescribed under the provisions of I.T. Act 1961 within the prescribed period of limitation. But the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that assessee had not filed appeal through electronic form, which is mandatory as per I.T. Rules 1962. After having considered the entire factual position, we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of Punjab Vs.ShyamalalMurari and others reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 1177’ has categorically held that courts should not go strictly by the rulebook to deny justice to the deserving litigant as it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all the rules of procedure are handmaid of Justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of Justice.

Bipin Jakharia, The Hon’ble Apex Court has said in an ‘adversarial’ system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of Justice dispensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement reported as AIR 2005 (SC) 3304 in the case of ‘RaniKusumVrs. Kanchan Devi,’ reiterated that, a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, as it is always subservient to and is in aid of Justice. Any interpretation, which eludes or frustrates the recipient of Justice, is not to be followed. From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however only the e-filing of appeal has not been done by the assessee and according to us, the same is only a technical consideration. In this respect, we rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that if in a given circumstances, the technical consideration and substantial Justice are pitted against each other, then in that eventuality the causeof substantial Justice deserves to be preferredand cannot be Bipin Jakharia, overshadowed or negativedby such technical considerations. Apart from above we have also noticed that the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in appeal in case titled Gurinder Singh DhillonVrs. ITO had restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(a) under identical circumstances with a direction do decide appeal afresh on merit, after condoning the delay, if any. Since in the present case,we find that appeal in the paper form was already with Ld. CIT(A), therefore in that eventuality the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically before the appellate Commissioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the case laws discussed and relied upon above, we are of the considered view that the cause of Justice would be served in case, we set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) & allow the present appeal. While seeking the compliance, we direct the assessee to file the appeal electronically within 10 days from