Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 290 days in filing the appeals should be condoned. (ii) Whether the notice issued for revision under section 263 was valid when it was not signed by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
Issue (i): Delay in filing was attributed to mistake and advice on the part of the assessee's consultant. The explanation was supported by affidavit, and the Court accepted that the assessee should not suffer for the consultant's lapse.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Section 263 confers revisional power on the Commissioner, and the notice initiating that jurisdiction must be issued by the competent authority. The notice in question was signed by the ACIT for the Commissioner and not by the Commissioner himself. On the authorities relied upon, such defect went to the root of jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was invalid and the revisional order was quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the revision proceedings were found to be without valid jurisdiction, and the assessee obtained complete relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the notice initiating proceedings must be issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax; a notice issued by an unauthorised is jurisdictionally defective and liable to be quashed.