Loading judgment…
Facts
The initial assessment under Section 143(3) was followed by a revisional order under Section 263 by the PCIT, leading to a consequential assessment order and a tax demand. The assessee's appeal against this consequential order was dismissed by the NFAC/CIT(A) due to an 86-day delay in filing. The assessee then filed the present appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s dismissal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the underlying revisional order under Section 263, which formed the basis of the consequential assessment, had already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the consequential assessment order could not be sustained. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without adopting a liberal view or considering the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing. 2. Whether a consequential assessment order is sustainable when the revisional order under Section 263, upon which it is based, has been quashed by a higher authority.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 01/11/2023 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
Prateek Gupta Vs. ITO 2. The Grounds taken in this appeal are as under:
“1. That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and without proper appreciation of facts and opportunity to the assessee.
2(1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not Justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without appreciating the bonafide facts of the case.
(ii) That the delay of 86 days in filing of appeal was occurred on account of Inadvertent mistake on part of the counsel and same being supported from affidavit, the action of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay is highly arbitrary and unjustified.
(iii) That there being reasonable circumstances for delay in filing of appeal, the CIT(A) ought to have considered the same in the interest of justice and equity.
3(1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal against the consequential assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 even though the revisionary order u/s 263 stands quashed by Hon'ble ITAT.
(ii) That in any case, the revisionary order u/s 263 being in respect of dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and re-computation of tax, the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 by the assessing officer is patently erroneous and without jurisdiction.
4. That the orders passed by Lower Authorities are not sustainable on facts and are bad in law.”
Prateek Gupta Vs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (‘Act’ for short) was completed on 05/12/2017 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 21,58,206/- after making addition of Rs. 17,46,906/.
Subsequently, Ld. PCIT Ghaziabad passed an order u/s 263 of the Act on 05/03/2021 with a direction to re-compute the tax and interest payable on the total income of the assessee. In compliance of the said direction of the PCIT, the A.O. passed an order to re- compute the tax and interest by raising demand of Rs. 7,44,461/-.
As against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act dated 15/03/2021, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the NFAC. The Appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the NFAC/CIT(A) on 01/11/2023 on the ground of delay in laches in preferring the Appeal of 86 days. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act has been vacated by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in vide order dated
Prateek Gupta Vs. ITO 06/12/2022 and without appreciating the same, the NFAC dismissed the Appeal on delay in laches though there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
The Ld. Departmental Representative by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act itself has been set aside by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in vide order dated 06/12/2022, therefore, the consequential order of the A.O. cannot be sustained. The NFAC instead of taking liberal view in condoning the delay of 86 days, without considering the meritorious case of the assessee erroneously dismissed the appeal on the Ground of delay in laches. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in doing so. Since, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act itself has been vacated by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the consequential order cannot be sustained. Therefore, we allow the Grounds of Appeal and set aside the impugned order of the NFAC.
In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th March, 2024