MANUEL ANAND DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2512/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2022AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the reasons provided for the delay were related to the Section 143(1) intimation and not the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to condone the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was time-barred by 95 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing reasons related to an intimation order under Section 143(1) and advice from a legal consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the revision order can be condoned based on reasons related to a prior intimation order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 05.05.2022Pronounced: 11.05.2022

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the revision order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Chennai in C.No.3033(4)/PCIT-3/2018-19, order dated 28.03.2019 passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) .

2 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal came up for hearing for the first time on 19.11.2019 and since then, this appeal was fixed for 17 times and except on one date i.e., 19.07.2021 Shri K.L. Jain appeared and sought for adjournment. Despite services of notice on various occasions, none is present and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal ex-parte after hearing ld. Senior DR.

3.

From the facts, it is noticed that the appeal is time barred by 95 days and the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons. The revision order passed by PCIT is dated 28.03.2019 and it was communicated to the assessee on that very day as per records. The assessee filed appeal before Tribunal on 30.08.2019 and thereby there is a delay of 95 days. The assessee in his affidavit stated the reasons that he has received intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act and according to the same, the assessee’s legal consultant stated that intimation is factually incorrect and application for rectification u/s.154 of the Act shall be filed. The assessee has stated the following reasons in the affidavit:- “1) I, Manual Anand David aged about 50 years, son of David identified by PAN AGXPD9534D at present residing at Address C-11, Venkataraman Road, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600082 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

2) That I received an Intimation for the assessment year 2010-11 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1962 on Date 3)That as per the said intimation I found that my returned income has been enhanced by Rs.9,08,505/- and a consequential demand of Rs. Has been made against me.

4) That I was advised by my legal consultant that the said intimation is factually incorrect and an application for rectification under section 154 shall be filed.

5) That I was advised by the legal consultant to file an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT for relief but the appeal has already become barred by time limitation. Nevertheless the appeal was filed before this Hon’ble ITAT on date 30/08/2019 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6) That in this way there is a delay of 95 days for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with memorandum of appeal.

7) That delay in filing the appeal is because of a genuine belief of the applicability of a particular provision of the Income Tax Act 1962 which was not accepted by the Original authority.

8) That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.

4.

When these were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he stated that the assessee in his affidavit or application is not talking about delay occurred on the order of revision passed by the PCIT and hence, no reason is cited.

4 5. After hearing ld. Senior DR, we noted from the application for condonation and affidavit filed, that the reasons stated are for the intimation order passed u/s.143(1) of the Act and not the revision order. Hence, we find no reason to condone the delay and hence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the court on 11th May, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →