Tribunal invalidates Section 263 revision order, ruling Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by condoning the delay in filing the appeal, holding the revision order under Section 263 invalid as the AO's decision was permissible, and determining that the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on an issue already pending in appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, declaring it unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal
2. Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263
3. Jurisdiction of Pr. CIT to Invoke Section 263

Summary:

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 199 days, claiming that the impugned order and show cause notices were sent only to the e-mail ID, which the assessee, being a farmer and not tech-savvy, did not use. The delay was argued to be covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Suo-moto Cognizance of extending the Limitation reported in 441 ITR 722 (SC). The Tribunal, considering the reasons provided and the relevant Supreme Court judgments, condoned the delay, stating that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate.

Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263:
The Pr. CIT issued a revision order under Section 263, challenging the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 determined by the AO. The AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and adopted the reverse indexation method, a permissible method, to determine the fair market value. The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view, and the Pr. CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the AO's view. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, which states that if the AO adopts one of the courses permissible in law, the order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Jurisdiction of Pr. CIT to Invoke Section 263:
The assessee argued that the issue of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was already a subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed, referencing the Bombay High Court's judgment in CIT(Exemption) vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority 412 ITR 521, which states that when an issue is pending in appeal, the Pr. CIT cannot invoke Section 263 on the same issue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the AO on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263, stating it was not sustainable in law, and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

---