Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was filed with a delay of 623 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay by filing a notarized affidavit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay of 623 days was abnormal and the explanation provided in the affidavit, that the appeal was filed on the advice of the authorized representative, did not constitute a sufficient cause for the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
263, 139(1), 10(38), 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2013-14 Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Vinayagapuram 1st Street, Circle 1, 12, Royapuram Main Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 601. [PAN:ABDPT4540J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore for the assessment year 2013-14 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” in short).
2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 623 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit for condonation of delay. The contents in the affidavit are reproduced herein below:
That I am assessed to income tax with DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle 1, Tiruppur, Tamilnadu. That I am engaged into a business as wholesaler and semi-wholesaler in Garments in Tiruppur, Tamilnadu a hub for Garments & Cotton Hosiery goods and filed my return of income before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer electronically on 30.09.2013 for the assessment year ("AY") 2013-14, within the due date under section 139 (1) of the IT Act, 1961.
That the during the previous year 2012-2013, I sold the equity shares of CCL International Limited in Bombay Stock Exchange through my Broker M/s. Hem Securities Limited, and offered the Gains as Long term capital Gains and claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. The same was also confirmed by the Ld. Assessing Officer who passed an assessment order u/s. 147 dated 26.08.2021 accepting the Income Returned after due verification of the details submitted before him in respect of the Capital gains claimed exempt.
3. That I have filed the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 30.09.2013, by disclosing the gross receipts on Sale of Equity Shares as LTCG which was accepted by the Ld. AO, was subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act by Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore 1 and passed a revision order placing reliance on the report of the DDIT Investigation, Gurugram on 21.06.2023. 4. The Ld. AO also passed an order giving effect to the revision by passing an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 06.03.2025 bringing the LTCG of Rs. 21,77,638/-. The Appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi on the order of the Ld. AO passed on 06.03.2025, challenging that the details were self- evidentiary submitted before it, and the same were brushed aside on mere assumption. 5. The Appellant also filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Benches, against the Order of the Pr. CIT Coimbatore 1, under section 263 of the Act, on 15th May 2025. The Appeal before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai was due on 20th August 2023, however, the same yeas filed on 15th May 2025 after a delay of 634 days. 6. The Appellant was advised by the Authorised Representative, since the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Ld. Pr. CIT Coimbatore 1 was only based on the report of DDIT Investigation, Gurugram, without any material or evidence that was brought on record, in assuming that the order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the revenue.
Thus, it may be seen that the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai Benches, was due to the aforesaid circumstances narrated above and the delay was neither wanton nor wilful. It is submitted that if the delay in filing appeal is not condoned, grave prejudice will be caused to me (Appellant), whereas, the Income-Tax department will not be prejudiced by the Condonation.
Hence, it is prayed that the delay of 634 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted.
The ld. AR Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. by referring to the aforesaid affidavit submits that the assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the advice of the authorized representative on the ground that the ld. PCIT had no material or evidence in initiating 263 proceedings. He argued vehemently that the ld. PCIT initiated revisional jurisdiction only based on the report of the DDIT (Inv.), Gurugram, which is not sufficient to assume the order of the Assessing Officer with erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. AR supported the reasons explained in the affidavit and prayed to condone the delay.
The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT vehemently opposed in condoning the delay and argued that no sufficient cause for the delay was shown by the assessee in the said affidavit. She argued that the delay of 623 days is abnormal, and no explanation given in the affidavit showing sufficient cause on day-today basis. She argued that the filing of appeal on the advice of authorized representative challenging the action of ld. PCIT in invoking provisions under section 263 of the Act does not constitute a sufficient cause in explaining the abnormal delay of 623 days. She submits that the assessee fully failed showing sufficient cause in explaining the delay and prayed to reject reasons explained in the affidavit.
On perusal of the affidavit, we note that the ld. PCIT held the assessment order dated 26.08.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue vide order dated 21.06.2023 under section 263 of the Act, in pursuance of which, the Assessing Officer passed giving effect order on 06.03.2025 under section 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, against which, the ld. AR submits an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A) and pending for adjudication. Further, on careful perusal of the affidavit, we find the assessee explained the facts of the case in paras 1 to 5 and in para 6, it was only stated that the assessee preferred appeal against 263 order only on the advice of the authorized representative, except such statement, we find no sufficient reason was stated in the said affidavit explaining the reasons which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. DR that the filing of appeal with abnormal delay of 623 days on the advice of the authorized representative is not a sufficient cause. Therefore, the affidavit seeking condonation of delay of 623 days in filing the appeal is rejected. Since we have rejected the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th August, 2025 at Chennai.