Tribunal allows appeal due to delayed filing, cites "sufficient cause" under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing "sufficient cause" under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act. The delay was deemed excusable as not intentional, allowing the appeal for adjudication. Regarding the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, the Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax exceeded the limitation period by revising the reassessment order instead of the original assessment order. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the revisionary order, ruling in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Delay in filing the appeal and its condonation.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed the appeal 353 days late, attributing the delay to incorrect professional advice. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, which allows condonation of delay if "sufficient cause" is shown. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found the delay excusable, as it was not deliberate or part of a dilatory strategy. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

2. Exercise of Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263:
The assessee challenged the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263, arguing it was beyond the limitation period specified in Section 263(2). The original assessment order under Section 143(1) was passed on 18.06.2013, and the reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 was passed on 29.09.2021. The Pr. CIT revised the reassessment order on grounds unrelated to the reasons for reopening the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could only revise the original assessment order under Section 143(1), which was barred by limitation as of 31.03.2016. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Limited and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. ICICI Bank Limited, which established that the limitation period runs from the date of the original order if the issues revised were not part of the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Pr. CIT was barred by limitation. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the revisionary order under Section 263 was set aside.

---