INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA, MOGA vs. SOHAN LAL & CO., MOGA

ITA 493/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 564 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be satisfactory, especially in light of a Coordinate Bench's decision to condone a significantly larger delay on identical grounds. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority, which was passed in consequence of a revision order under Section 263 of the Act, could not have independent existence because the said Section 263 order had been set aside by a Coordinate Bench. The Tribunal reasoned that once the foundation (the Section 263 order) is removed, the consequential order (the impugned order) loses its validity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority as well as the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was directed to await the decision of the revisionary authority in the set-aside proceedings and, if warranted, pass a fresh assessment order after the completion of those proceedings. The issue of the amount in dispute was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Samra Industrie, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, against an order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. There was a delay of 564 days in filing the appeal. The assessee's case arose from an assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to a revision order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The ITAT had previously, by an order dated 23.07.2026 in ITA No. 583/Asr/2025, set aside the PCIT's Section 263 order and directed the PCIT to adjudicate the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 564 days in filing the appeal can be condoned? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority, which was consequential to a Section 263 revision order that has been set aside, can have independent existence? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Regarding the delay, the assessee argued that identical reasons for a much larger delay (2,246 days) in a related matter were found satisfactory by a Coordinate Bench, and therefore, the present delay should also be condoned due to parity of facts. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not controvert the factual position presented by the assessee regarding the setting aside of the Section 263 order by the Coordinate Bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27.09.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. There is delay of 564 days in filing the appeal.

3.

After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee explaining the cause of delay, we find that identical reasoning shown by the assessee for belated filing of appeal seeking condonation of delay of 2,246 days was found to be satisfactory by the Coordinate Bench and delay was condoned. Thus, due to parity

2 Asst. Year: 2011-12 of facts, we condone delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

4.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →