SHRI GOPAL SHANKAR BELGE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, PUNE, PUNE

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune [Ld. PCIT], passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2015-16 on 11.03.2020, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 04.12.2027.

2.1 The Order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was passed on 11/3/2020. It is noted that the Order u/s 263 was passed during COVID Pandemic

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

period. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 OF 2020 in RE: Cognizance for extension of Limitation, had extended the period of Limitation as under : Quote, “In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. IN the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.” Unquote.

2.2 We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and the CA. It is observed that there was delay initially because of covid and then because of the wrong advise by CA Mr. Surana who has accepted this fact in the affidavit. Ld. DR has not rebutted any of the submission of the Ld.AR on the issue of condonation.

2.3 The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “21. We find from paragraph 13 of the order, but for this relevant factors and tests, everything else has been brought into the adjudication by the Tribunal. The Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly carried away by the fact that the delay of 2984 days is incapable of condonation. That is not how a matter of this nature should be approached. In the process the Tribunal went about blaming the assessee and the professionals and equally the Department. To our mind, therefore, the Tribunal's order does not meet the requirement set out in law. The Tribunal has completely misdirected itself and has taken into account factors, tests and considerations which have no bearing or nexus with the issue at hand. The Tribunal, therefore, has erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay. The explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor we find that from such explanation can we arrive at the conclusion that the assessee was at fault, he intentionally and deliberately delayed thematter and has no bona fide or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the proceedings. The position is quite otherwise. 22. In the light of the above discussion, we allow both the appeals. We condone the delay of 2984 days in filing the appeals but on the condition of payment of costs, quantified totally at Rs.50,000/-. Meaning thereby, Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- in both appeals. The costs to be paid in one set to the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today. On proof of payment of costs, the Tribunal shall restore the appeals of the assessee to its file for adjudication and disposal on merits. We clarify that all contentions as far as merits of the claim are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the same.”Unquote.

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

(emphasis supplied)

2.4 Thus, in the above referred case, the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court has condoned the delay of 2984 days. The Hon‟ble High Court has categorically observed that there was no intentional and deliberate delay and hence, Hon‟ble High Court condoned the delay.

2.5 No assessee is going to derive any benefit by delaying the appeal. Hence, in the interest of justice, respectfully following Hon‟ble Bombay High Court we condone the delay in filling appeal before this Tribunal.

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

order u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. DR relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd., 85 taxmann.com10.

5.1 The Pr.CIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act has observed that Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted inquiry regarding Gifts received by the Assessee from Father in Law and Mother in Law. The Pr.CIT also observed that the AO had not conducted inquiry regarding sale of property.

5.2 The Assessee‟s case was selected for LIMITED SECRUTINY. This fact is mentioned in the Assessment Order. This fact is also evident from the copy of Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 2/8/2016 where in it is specifically mentioned as „Limited Scrutiny‟. Copy of the said Notice is at page 20 of the Paper Book(PB) filed by ld.AR. The case was selected for verification of Cash Deposit and Purchase of Property.

5.3 The Assessing Officer issued various notices and the Assessee filed relevant details during the scrutiny proceedings. During the Scrutiny Proceedings the Assessee filed following documents :  Copy of Purchase Agreement for Flat  Details of Sale of old property  Copy ICICI Bank Statement  Copy of Saraswat Bank Statement.  Bank Loan details for purchase of flat  Chart explaining all payments

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

 Copies of Gift deeds explaining Gift received from Father in Law and Mother in Law.  Copy of land Records to prove agricultural income of father in law and mother in law. 5.4 The copies of the letters filed by the Assessee in response to Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act have been filed in the paper book.

5.5 The ITO Ward 10(2), Pune the AO, verified all the above documents and passed the Assessment Order dated 4/12/2017 accepting Returned Income . The AO has specifically mentioned in the Assessment Order that the Assessee had filed relevant documents mentioned in the Assessment order , the AO has verified the documents and AO has recorded the satisfaction accepting assessee‟s submission. Thus, it is evident from the Assessment Order that the AO has certified in the order that the AO has verified all the documents and accepted the explanation of the Assessee.

5.6 Once the AO after verifying the submission has arrived at a plausible view the Pr.CIT is precluded from substituting his own view on the same facts. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has explained the law on this issue.

5.7 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan ,384ITR 200(SC) observed as under : Quote, “21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from.”Unquote.

5.8 The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Communication Ltd.396 ITR 217 (Bombay) [28-03- 2016] held as under : Quote, “10. In the case before us, the concession of the assessee's authorized representative apart, what the Tribunal found and on all the three items highlighted by Mr. Tejveer Singh is that there were materials before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made enquiries about the above referred aspects and which have been noted by the Commissioner. The assessee made submissions by placing all relevant documents before

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

the Assessing Officer. Thus the case does not fall within the parameters laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts. The mere fact that the Assessing Officer did not make any reference to these three issues in the assessment order cannot make the order erroneous when the issues were indeed looked into. The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee's replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. When the Tribunal concludes in this manner and finally in paragraph 16 holds that the Assessing Officer took a perfectly correct or a possible view, then, the order passed by him cannot be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax was not, therefore, justified in invoking section 263 of the Act. 11. We are of the view that the Tribunal's order and conclusions are essentially on facts. They cannot be termed as perverse and after it adverted to the rival contentions and all the materials on record. The Tribunal's order cannot thus be held to be vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record so as to call for interference in our further appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial questions of law, but the attempt of the Revenue is to have a reappreciation and reappraisal of the same factual material. That is impermissible. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ” Unquote.

5.9 The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Future Corporate Resources Ltd in IT APPEAL NO.1275 OF 2017 vide order dated SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 held as under : Quote, “7. In the order of PCIT it is stated "in paragraph 4.3 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that from the details submitted by the assessee and the explanation given by him, it was observed that assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment had been made and also there was business income to the assessee from the same. Therefore, interest expense debited by the assessee has not been considered for the calculation of disallowance under section 14A because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business." The PCIT therefore agrees that the Assessing Officer has recorded from the details submitted by respondent and the explanation given by respondent that the assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment has been made and also there was a business income to the assessee from the same. He notes that the Assessing Officer, therefore did not consider the calculation of disallowance under section 14A the interest expense debited by the assessee because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT though was unhappy with the view of the Assessing Officer, the PCIT himself does not say why it should have been considered for the calculation of disallowance under section 14A. Even if one assumes that he has, after reading of the order expressed his views, but still the position is two views therefore were possible. Therefore, if one of the two possible views was taken by the

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

Assessing Officer, the PCIT could not have exercised his powers under section 263 of the Act.” Unquote.

7.1 The Ld. DR has also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Texmo Precision Casting UK ltd vs CIT 288 taxmann251. This case is distinguishable on facts as in that case there is specific finding that assessee have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and hence the tax rate should have been u/s 115JB of the Act and not DTAA. This case is distinguishable on facts.

ITA No.1263/PUN/2023

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 13-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.14 09:20:47 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune