Assessee's 348-day delay in challenging section 263 order rejected due to conscious "wait and see" approach

The ITAT Hyderabad rejected the assessee's application for condonation of 348 days delay in filing appeal against a revision order under section 263. The assessee claimed delay was due to improper legal advice, but the tribunal found the consultant's advice dated 07/04/2022 clearly outlined two options: challenge the section 263 order or accept it and proceed with revision proceedings. The assessee consciously chose to proceed with revision proceedings before the AO, then later sought to challenge the section 263 order only after realizing limited options in consequential proceedings. The tribunal held this "wait and see" approach did not constitute sufficient cause for delay condonation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.

Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. The issue revolved around the reimbursement of ESOP received by the assessee from its subsidiary company, which was considered as income under section 58 of the Act. The Principal Commissioner found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to the non-offering of this income. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by the assessee, emphasizing that the jurisdiction under section 263 is not meant to substitute the views of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal reviewed the timeline of events, including consultations with advisors and the subsequent filing of the appeal, ultimately upholding the Principal Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment order and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the ESOP issue.

Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay:
The Tribunal deliberated on the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal and the request for condonation. The assessee cited reasons such as seeking advice from consultants and waiting for the right time to challenge the order under section 263. The Revenue contended that condoning the delay would encourage frivolous litigation. The Tribunal examined the advice received by the assessee from consultants, highlighting the options provided regarding challenging the order under section 263 or accepting it. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not justified, as the assessee's conduct indicated a strategic approach to litigation, waiting to challenge the order based on the outcome of the consequential proceedings. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without delving into its merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the jurisdictional aspect under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the issue of delay in filing the appeal, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to the uncondonable delay. The decision emphasized the importance of genuine reasons for seeking condonation of delay and discouraged strategic litigation tactics.

---