TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 1249 days in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether an order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is maintainable if the revision proceedings were initiated on the proposal/recommendation of the Assessing Officer; (iii) Whether appeals consequential to an order under section 263, once that order is held non-maintainable, become infructuous.
Issue (i): Whether the delay of 1249 days in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the period of delay and accepted exclusion of the COVID-19 period in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling on extension of limitation. For the residual delay, the Tribunal considered the assessee's affidavit explaining non-receipt of notices due to email details of the tax practitioner and change of residence, finding no mala fide conduct by the assessee.
Conclusion: The delay is condoned in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is maintainable when revision was initiated on the Assessing Officer's proposal.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the legal framework of section 263, requiring the Commissioner to "call for and examine the record" and then form the opinion that an order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal followed the precedent of the Pune Tribunal (Alfa Laval Lund AB) holding that a proposal from the AO does not constitute the Commissioner calling for and examining the record and that initiation of revision on AO's recommendation results in jurisdictional defect.
Conclusion: The orders passed by the Commissioner under section 263 on the basis of the AO's proposal are not maintainable; the assessee's grounds on this issue are allowed.
Issue (iii): Whether appeals consequential to an order under section 263 become infructuous if that order is set aside as non-maintainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal treated appeals arising solely from the direction by the Commissioner under section 263 as dependent on the validity of that direction and therefore academic once the primary section 263 orders were set aside.
Conclusion: Such consequential appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay and, on the merits of maintainability under section 263, set aside the Commissioner's orders as not maintainable (resulting in part allowance of the appeals) and dismissed consequential appeals as infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 vests power in the Commissioner to revise an order only after he himself calls for and examines the record and forms the requisite opinion; a revision initiated on a proposal from the Assessing Officer does not satisfy this statutory requirement and vitiates the Commissioner's order for want of jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
