CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed manually.  On writ the single judge held that the  appeal being a statutory and substantive right, ought not to be denied, in view of procedural lapses in filing of appeal manually, instead of electronically as provided under rule 45. On appeal the division bench of the High Court held that the single Judge was right in holding that in as much as the appeal is admittedly manually filed in the present case and that the CIT(A) has also heard the matter on more than one occasion, appeal being a statutory and substantive right, ought not to be denied, in view of procedural lapses in filing of appeal manually, instead of electronically as provided under r. 45.  Court also held that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Single Judge, inasmuch as it has been made clear that, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to preserve the right of appeal, the directions were given while making it clear that this case shall not be treated as a precedent and the question as to whether R. 45 of the IT Rules must be treated as mandatory or directory, is left open-Arjun Krishna Kondamani v. Dy. CIT (WP. No. 6766 of 2019, dt. 10th April, 2019) affirmed (AY. 2013-14)