Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the Assessee against the orders of the PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. There was a delay of 334 days in filing the appeals, attributed to the assessee-Company's representative, Dalip Jindal, being in custody. The assessee's counsel highlighted that Dalip Jindal was in judicial custody during the proceedings before the Revisional Authority, and a fresh notice was not served through jail authorities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative was in judicial custody and a fresh notice was not served, potentially leading to a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal also acknowledged the delay in filing the appeals was substantiated by the custody of the representative.
Key Issues
Whether the proceedings under Section 263 were vitiated due to lack of proper notice to the assessee in judicial custody, and whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned.
Sections Cited
263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ITA No. & Ld. FAA who Date of order of the Ld. AO who passed the AY passed the appellate Revisional authority assessment order & order Date of order 2863/Del/20 PCIT (Central), DIN & Order No : DCIT, 25 Delhi-1 ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023- Central Circle-8, 24/1062082551(1) New Delhi Dated 06.03.2024 Dated 02.07.2021 2864/Del/20 PCIT (Central), DIN & Order No : ACIT, 25 Delhi-1 ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023- Central Circle-8, 24/1062068598 (1) New Delhi Dated 06.03.2024 Dated 10.06.2021
At the outset, it was pointed out that there is a delay of 334 days in filing of the appeals for which it was submitted that application for condonation of delay has been filed and the reason is that the assessee- Company was represented by assessee Dalip Jindal who was in custody so P a g e | Jindal Green Crop International Pvt. Ltd. & Dalip Jindal (AY: 2018-19) he could not represented himself or the company. The ground substantiates condonation. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for hearing.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the fact that during the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, assessee was in judicial custody in a case of Enforcement Directorate and his wife Smt. Shaloo Jindal had appeared before the Ld. Revisional Authority and appraised the authority that Sh. Dalip Jindal Director of the assessee-Company in is in judicial custody. However, the Ld. Competent Authority had not issued a fresh notice in due course of law, to serve Sh. Dalip Jindal through jail authorities.
Ld. Counsel stated at bar that though the process itself was prejudicial, however, assessee needs an opportunity to now represent the case adequately, before the Ld. Revisional Authority, to which Ld. DR could not object in all fairness, as otherwise it would be a case of non-service of the notice u/s. 263 of the Act and lack of opportunity of hearing.
P a g e | Jindal Green Crop International Pvt. Ltd. & Dalip Jindal (AY: 2018-19) 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the impugned order is set aside in both the appeals, with the direction to the Revisional Authority to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass the order afresh in accordance with law.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2026