Court allows delay, dismisses revenue's appeal. PCIT must apply mind. Lack of inquiry = no jurisdiction.

The court condoned a 41-day delay in re-filing the appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal against the common order by the ITAT for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. The court emphasized the importance of the PCIT applying their mind before exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, noting the Assessee's cooperation during assessment proceedings. The lack of sufficient inquiry by the AO did not warrant jurisdiction under Section 263, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in re-filing the appeal
2. Appeal against the common order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
3. Assessment proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
4. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)
5. Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act
6. Application of mind by the PCIT

Analysis:
1. The delay of 41 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned by the court, allowing the application subject to all just exceptions.

2. The revenue appealed against the common order passed by the ITAT for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. The appeals were filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, revising the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

3. A search and seizure operation was conducted, leading to the discovery of documents related to transactions by the Assessee. The Revenue alleged that the Assessee paid interest higher than recorded and failed to explain repayments to creditors. The Assessee provided details during assessment proceedings, but the AO proposed jurisdiction under Section 263, which was later exercised by the PCIT.

4. The PCIT issued a show cause notice to the Assessee, deeming the assessment order as erroneous. The ITAT concluded that the Assessee provided sufficient details, and inadequate inquiry by the AO did not warrant jurisdiction under Section 263.

5. The court considered precedents where revisionary jurisdiction was justified based on incorrect facts. However, in this case, the Assessee had cooperated during assessment proceedings, and the PCIT's lack of application of mind was noted.

6. The court found no substantial question of law in the ITAT's order, dismissing the appeals without costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of the PCIT being satisfied with the material available before exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.

---