SRI ZAHEER SALIMUDDIN,BULANDSHAHAR vs. PR CIT-1 , AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 38/AGR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the PCIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction during the Covid-19 pandemic and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the PCIT for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises against an order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the proceedings were conducted ex parte. The Revenue argued that the assessee's non-cooperation led to the PCIT passing an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified given the circumstances, including potential communication gaps during the pandemic, and whether the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 134 Taxmann.com 307
    134 Taxmann.com 307 · 2022 · SC
    53 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 11.02.2025Pronounced: 11.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Agra’s order dated 31.03.2022, involving proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed ex parte against the appellant.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from Revenue side represented by Shri S.K. Jain, CIT(DR) that these revision proceedings u/s. 263 have held the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment framed on 29.12.2019 as an erroneous order causing prejudice to the interest of revenue. Shri Jain submits that the assessee’s non-cooperation throughout from day one in revision proceedings led the PCIT to pass ex-parte order. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the PCIT had invoked revisionary jurisdiction during Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak since the impugned order is passed on 31.03.2022. We further wish to quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in re “(2022) 134 taxmann.com 307(SC) have already the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, to hold that possibility of communication gaps at various levels could not be altogether ruled out.

We, thus, deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the matter back to the PCIT for his fresh adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities and the assessee is now directed to ensure that he pleads and proves all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11TH February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →