MR.RAHUL SUKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1456/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7955 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Assessee Lawyers: SUKUMAR N SHAH

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) & SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1456 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13 - 14 ) MR. RAHUL SUKUMAR SHAH 1401 - B, SURYA APARTMENT BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD BREACH CANDY MUMBAI - 400 026. PAN : AABPS5665G V S . ITO 19(3)(1) ROOM NO. 202 MATRU MANDIR TARDEO MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUKUMAR N. SHAH DEPARTMENT BY SHRI D.G. PANSARI DATE OF HEARING 1 8 .6 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 . 7 . 201 9 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) : - THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED CIT - A DATED 10.1.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. T HE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LEARNED CIT - A ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE O N THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICALLY. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PURSUANT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT - A. L EARNED CIT - A NOTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS IN THIS REGARD, FROM THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - A WAS TO BE FILED IN ELECTRONIC MODE. THE LEARNED CIT - A NOTED THAT SINCE IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE ON THE TECHNICA L GROUND. 4. AGAINST THIS ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MR. RAHUL SUKUMAR SHAH 2 LEARNED CIT - A HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM. HE HAS DISMISSED THE SAME AS UNADM ITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY. SINCE IT WAS NOT SO DONE THE LEARNED CIT - A DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR WHEN IT WAS REQUIRED THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY. IT IS PRAYED THAT THERE WERE SOME TECHNICAL GLITCHES AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND PROPER ORDER ON THE ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME SHOULD BE GIVEN. 5. UP ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE'S PLEA IS THAT IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE APPEAL TO BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY AND THE RE WERE SOME TECHNICAL GLITCHES . IT IS PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE APPEAL SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. THIS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION DESERVES PROPER CONSIDERATION. WE NOTE THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IN THE WEB OF HYPERTECHNICALITY JUSTICE SHOULD NOT TAKE A BACKSEAT. ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT - A. LEARNED CIT - A DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES RAISE D ON MERITS AND PASS BY SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING PROPER NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1. 7 . 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (RAVISH SOOD ) (SH A MIM YAH YA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 / 7 / 20 1 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI MR. RAHUL SUKUMAR SHAH 3 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI