Tribunal allows appeal after delay, quashes revision order citing Finance Act.

The Tribunal condoned a 72-day delay in filing an appeal, citing the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period. It found no negligence or mala fide intent, admitting the appeal for adjudication. Regarding the revision order under Section 263, the Tribunal quashed it, noting the retrospective omission of Section 92BA(1) by the Finance Act, 2017, making the non-reference to the TPO non-prejudicial. Consequently, the assessment by the AO was upheld, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed, based on established legal grounds from a precedent.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the revision order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263.
3. Justification of setting aside the assessment order.
4. Legal grounds for quashing the revision order.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 72 days, necessitating a condonation application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period was cited. The Tribunal, under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, has the authority to admit appeals filed beyond the time limit if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The Tribunal found no culpable negligence or mala fide intent on the part of the assessee, and considering the principles of substantial justice, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Validity of Revision Order:
The ld. Pr. CIT passed a revision order under Section 263, setting aside the assessment order due to the AO's failure to refer the domestic transaction to the TPO. However, the Tribunal noted that the relevant section, 92BA(1), was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, applicable retrospectively to A.Y. 2016-17. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal held that the omission of the section meant that the ld. Pr. CIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263. Following the legal ground established in the precedent, the impugned order was quashed, and the assessment by the AO was upheld.

Setting Aside Assessment Order:
The ld. Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, alleging an error by the AO in not referring the case to the TPO. The Tribunal found that the issue pertained to A.Y. 2016-17, and the omission of section 92BA(1) by the Finance Act, 2017, rendered the non-reference to the TPO not prejudicial to revenue. Relying on a Co-ordinate Bench decision, the Tribunal quashed the revision order and upheld the assessment by the AO.

Quashing of Revision Order:
The Tribunal, following the legal precedent, quashed the revision order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263, as the omission of section 92BA(1) rendered the exercise of jurisdiction void. By upholding the assessment order by the AO, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of condonation of delay, validity of the revision order, setting aside the assessment order, and the legal grounds for quashing the revision order comprehensively.

---