Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bellamkonda Surender Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Chowdary, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-14(1), PAN: AEDPB 1557 L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Sri M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 09/03/2020 Date of pronouncement: 25/06/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
Both these appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-6, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 0363 & 0364/2016- 17/A3/CIT(A)-6, dated 12/02/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2010-11.
Since both the assessee’s have raised identical grounds in their respective appeals, they are disposed off by this common Order for the sake of convenience. The identical grounds raised in both the appeals are extracted herein below for reference.:-
The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
(1) The Appellate Commissioner erred in determining the AY as 2014015 when in fact the appeal filed was for the AY 2010-11, when in the electronic return the AY was mistakenly mentioned as 2014-15, and dismissing the appeal in limine. (2) The appellate commissioner ought to have seen that the appeal filed was for AY 2010-11, which was rectified by the AY by filing the physical return with the correct assessment year. (3) The notices issued by the appellate commissioner were for AY 2010- 11, the written submissions were for AY 2010-11, and haring were done for Ay 2010-11, and the Appellate Commissioner never raised the issue of wrong mentioning of the assessment year. (4) The appellate Commissioner never gave any defect notice to the appellant and head the case, and only when the order was passed the appellate commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no appeal pending for AY 2014-15. (5) Any other grounds which the appellant may urge either at or before the date of hearing.”
At the outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 10 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, both the assessees has submitted affidavits before us seeking condonation of delay wherein it was stated that they had filed the appeal in Form 35 electronically within the stipulated time, however by oversight the AY was wrongly mentioned as 2014-15 instead of the relevant AY 2010-11. On realising the mistake, it was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT (A) and a physical copy was filed stating the correct AY. After perusing the condonation petition filed by the assessees we are of the considered view that delay in filing the appeals is required to be condoned since the assessees had filed the original appeals within the stipulated period prescribed under the Act and the subsequent filing of the appeals is only with respect to the correction of the error in mentioning the correct assessment year. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeals.
Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessees by simply stating that the assessees had wrongly filed an appeal for the AY 2014-15 when there was no order passed by the Ld. AO with respect to the AY 2014-15. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessees had actually filed the appeals for the AY 2010-11 but by oversight in the appeals Form No.35 the assessment year was wrongly mentioned as 2014-15, however the same was corrected by filing a fresh appeal in Form No.35 mentioning the correct assessment year as 2010-11. It was therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to the assessee to pursue the appeal before him on merits. Ld. DR on the other hand argued in support of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and pleaded for dismissing the appeals of the assessees.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case it is apparent that the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeals of the assessees. In fact, he should have taken cognisance of the original appeals filed by the assessee by correcting the apparent mistake and adjudicated the appeals on merits. However, unfortunately, he has grossly failed to do so. Considering the facts and circumstances of both these appeals, we hereby set-aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) and remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to consider both the appeals of the assessees on merits for the relevant AY 2010-11 condoning the delay in filing the appeals.
Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal, which is though against the usual norms, we find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, we have relied in the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. In and 6103/M/2018 for AY 2013-14 order dated 14th May 2020.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.
Pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2020.