BELLAMKONDA PADMAVATHI,HYDERBAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERBAD

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.:-

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.