JAYKANT UTTAMCHAND SHAH,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,, VALSAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 276/SRT/2022Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 April 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)4 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 dismissed the assessee's appeal due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. The assessee's application for condonation of delay was not supported by an affidavit and lacked a plausible explanation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263. The appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 1956 days.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the Pr. CIT's revisionary order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 31/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 05/04/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, J.M.

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad (in short, the ld. Pr. CIT dated 21/03/2017 for the Assessment year (AY) 2012-13, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 setting aside the order of A.O. passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 10/03/2015 for the year under consideration although said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in observing that claim for deduction u/s 54B of the act to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- Jaykant Uttamchand Shah Vs Pr CIT is not allowable and thereby erred in giving directions to A.O for making re-computation.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in giving directions to A.O. for making verification of unsecured loans, sundry creditors and items of expenditure in P&L Account.

4. It is, therefore, prayed that order passed by Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the order of A.O. and directing A.O. to pass fresh assessment order may please be quashed.

5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

2. Perusal of record reveals that the impugned order was passed by the ld. Pr.CIT on 21/03/2017, however, the present appeal is filed by assessee on 27/09/2022. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Registry of this office has calculated the delay of 1956 days in filing the appeal, before the Tribunal.

3. The notice of hearing of the appeal was served on the assessee by way of registered AD on more than two occasions. The notice sent for hearing fixed on 31/3/2023 returned back by the postal authority with the remark, which is not readable. The notice was sent as per address mentioned on Form-36. Despite service of notice on more than two occasions, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and hearing the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT- DR) for the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the impugned order was passed by the ld. Pr. CIT on 21/03/2017, however,

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →