Non-Intimation by Tax Practitioner Causes Appeal Delay: ITAT Condones 1249-Day Delay, Quashes Revision u/s 263 Initiated on AO's Proposal [Read Order]
ITAT condoned a 1249-day delay due to COVID and non-intimation by the tax practitioner, also quashed PCIT’s section 263 revision.
Non-Intimation - Tax Practitioner Causes Appeal Delay - ITAT Condones - Delay - Quashes Revision us 263 - Proposal
Non-Intimation - Tax Practitioner Causes Appeal Delay - ITAT Condones - Delay - Quashes Revision us 263 - Proposal
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to a taxpayer by condoning a delay of 1,249 days in filing appeals for AY 2015-16, noting that part of the delay fell within the COVID-19 period covered by the Supreme Court’s blanket extension of limitation, while attributing 499 days of the delay to the tax practitioner’s failure to inform the appellant.
The assessee-appellant, Bandigadi Chandrappashetty Rajashekarappa, explained in an affidavit that the email ID of the tax practitioner that was in the income tax return, which received all notices under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were unnoticed by the appellant.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) passed the revisionary order ex parte. The appellant only became aware of it upon receiving an outstanding demand message in August 2023.
The Tribunal found the delay was not deliberate or mala fide and proceeded to hear the matter on the merits.
The Tribunal Bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) noted that the PCIT had initiated proceedings under section 263 based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer (AO), rather than a suo motu examination of the assessment records, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite under section 263.
The bench relied on the Pune Tribunal’s decision in Alfa Laval Lund AB v. CIT (2021), the ITAT held that such initiation at the behest of the AO was legally contrary to section 263.
The tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT under section 263 on the ground that the order is not maintainable. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee was allowed.
As the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee on technical grounds and could not find any reason raised by the assessee on merit of the case, other issues raised by the assessee on merit became infructuous.
The appellant was represented by Ravishankar S.V., while Shivanand Kalakeri represented the revenue.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
