ITAT allows delay in appeal filing & remits jurisdiction issue back for fair hearing.

The ITAT Visakhapatnam accepted the condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's order excluding specific periods for delay calculation. Regarding the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to present their case, ensuring principles of natural justice were met.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of Delay, Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 175 days, seeking condonation based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for calculating delays in filing appeals. The ITAT Visakhapatnam, following the Supreme Court's order, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.

Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat the difference between the stamp duty value and purchase consideration of a property as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee appealed, arguing that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The ITAT noted that the Pr.CIT did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to explain, remitting the matter back to the Pr.CIT for another hearing to ensure principles of natural justice were met.

This judgment by the ITAT Visakhapatnam addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the Condonation of Delay, the appeal was filed late, but the ITAT accepted the delay based on the Supreme Court's order excluding certain periods for calculating delays in filing appeals. Secondly, on the Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the Pr.CIT's direction to treat the property value difference as income was challenged by the assessee, arguing the assessment was not erroneous. The ITAT found the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case, remanding the matter back to the Pr.CIT for a fair hearing.

---