PALLAPALAYAM PACCS LTD. (AOP),TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), TIRUPUR

PER SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M :

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 13.08.2025

passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A),

National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year

2020-21.

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter “the Act”] vide its order dated 18.09.2022. The assessee preferred a revision u/s. 264 of the Act on 21.11.2022, wherein the ld.PCIT declined to amend the assessment

order passed by the AO vide its order dated 09.08.2023. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) u/s. 246A of the Act on 21.08.2023 with a delay. The ld.CIT(A) discussed the delay in paras

3.1 to 3.4 of the impugned order, wherein he held the assessee failed to show sufficient cause as required u/s. 249(3) of the Act, consequently the delay condonation petition was rejected, but however, proceeded to

discuss the issue on merits as well as maintainability of appeal under 246A of the Act, as the assessee was already exercised revision u/s. 264 of the Act. We note that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is not maintainable as

he proceeded to discuss the issue on merits and maintainability of right of appeal under 246A of the Act without condoning the delay. It is a settled principle that the appellate authority shall consider the delay condonation petition and if such authority satisfies with the reasons explained by the

assesee for any delay, condone the delay and proceed to decide the issue on merits. But however, in the present case, the ld.CIT(A) without Page - 2 - of 4 condoning the delay proceeded to decide the issue on merits as well as the maintainability of the appeal. In our opinion, is misconceived. Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside.

the CIT(A). Therefore, when there is no right of appeal waived, the PCIT in observing that there is bar under 264(4) of the Act is not justified. Further, the ld.CIT(A) held that the appeal u/s. 246A is not maintainable

because express provision u/s. 264(4) of the Act, which provides that an order u/s. 264 of the Act shall not be revised whether the order has been made subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the

present case, the assessee did not prefer an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) simultaneously as of the revision under 264 of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld.PCIT passed an order on 09.08.2023

and the assessee filed appeal u/s. 246A of the Act only thereafter i.e. on 21.08.2023. Therefore, the finding of ld.CIT(A) is incorrect as far as the facts and circumstances relevant to provisions u/s. 264(4) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we

deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and condone the delay and shall Page - 3 - of 4 adjudicate the issue on merits and pass order in accordance with law.

The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim.

The assessee shall appear before the ld.CIT(A) without fail. Thus, appeal

of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

purposes. Order pronounced on 13th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस एस. आर आर. रघुनाथा रघुनाथा) (यस यसयस यसिव�ने� िव�ने�रिव रिव) एस एस आर आर रघुनाथा रघुनाथा यस यस यस यस िव�ने� िव�ने� रिव रिव (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) लेखा लेखासद�यकेसम� लेखा लेखा सद�यकेसम� सद�यकेसम�/Accountant Member सद�यकेसम� �याियक �याियकसद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य/ Judicial Member सद�य 13th May, 2026. Chennai, Dated: JPV Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. DR 5. GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.14 14:45:20 +05'30'

Page - 4 - of 4