2025 (12) TMI 397 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal under s.246A maintainable despite prior s.264 revision; s.264(4)(c) limits revision, not appellate remedy rights

ITAT Cochin dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding NFAC's jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's appeal under s. 246A against an intimation under s. ... Petition filed u/s. 264 - intimation issued u/s. 143(1) - As argued NFACT ought not have entertained the appeal in view of the express bar contained in section 264(4)(c) - assessee submits that the embargo contained u/s. 264(4)(c) is not applicable in respect of appeals filed u/s. 246A - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 264 only impose embargo that a revision petition u/s. 264 cannot be entertained in respect of an item which is subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). However, no such embargo was incorporated u/s. 246A of the Act. Therefore, the NFAC was justified in entertaining the appeal. No pleadings were made before us on the merits of the findings of the NFAC. Thus, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Revenue's appeals concerned whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) could entertain an appeal against an intimation under section 143(1) when the same intimation was already the subject of a revision petition under section 264. Revenue invoked the bar in section 264(4)(c), arguing that once revision proceedings were initiated, appellate jurisdiction was ousted. The Tribunal examined section 264 and held that its embargo is one-way: it restricts the revisional authority from entertaining a petition in respect of an 'item which is subject matter of appeal' before the CIT(A). It does not, however, impose any restriction on the filing or maintainability of an appeal under section 246A. As 'no such embargo was incorporated u/s. 246A,' NFAC/CIT(A) was 'justified in entertaining the appeal.' No submissions were made before the Tribunal on the merits of NFAC's decision; accordingly, the Tribunal found no merit in Revenue's grounds and dismissed both appeals, applying its reasoning mutatis mutandis to the second year.