2023 (2) TMI 1208 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filling appeal - delay of 988 days - appeal against Revision order u/s 263 - HELD THAT - If we look into the reasons, it is clear that the explanation given is that the staff of the assessee had not noticed the order sent by email to the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has also passed an ex-parte order without considering the paper book submitted before the PCIT. It was submitted by the assessee that the AO has sent a reminder in respect of payment of tax arrears and then only the assessee learnt about the non-filing of the appeal before the PCIT. No such evidence / document had been filed before us. Law requires the assessee to be vigilant and careful in prosecuting its rights under the Act. In the present case, as pointed out by the ld. DR that the revisional order was passed on 28.02.2019 and thereafter, AO after issuing notice had issued the order giving effect u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 on 31.12.2019. Almost 10 months have passed between passing of the revisional order and consequential order passed by the AO, yet the assessee has chosen not to proceed against the order of PCIT. Assessee appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15.
2. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and condonation of the same.

Issue 1: Challenge to order under section 263:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15. The Principal Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issue of large share premium received during the relevant year and other discrepancies. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment order and revised it under section 263. The assessee challenged this decision before the Tribunal, arguing that the assessment made under section 143(3) should not have been quashed.

Issue 2: Delay in filing the appeal and condonation:
The assessee sought condonation for a delay of 988 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Director of the assessee company explained that due to reduced administrative staff and lack of day-to-day management activities after April 2018, the email communication regarding the order was not noticed promptly. The delay was discovered only when reminded by auditors about tax arrears. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons provided by the assessee, found them not bona fide. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of timely filing of appeals and the need for reasonable cause for condonation. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay were vague and lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to being time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned due to reasons deemed not bona fide, emphasizing the significance of adhering to timelines in legal proceedings.