TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation; (ii) Whether the revisional order under section 263 was valid in law, including on limitation and merits; (iii) Whether the consequential addition and penalty survived after the revisional order was set aside.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation.
Analysis: The delay was explained by the assessee on the basis of non-communication of the order by its employee and the surrounding circumstances. The delay was found to be unintentional, and the principle of advancing substantial justice was applied in preference to technical objections.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeals were admitted.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order under section 263 was valid in law, including on limitation and merits.
Analysis: The assessment under section 143(3) had already examined the relevant material and accepted the claim after scrutiny. The revisional power under section 263 was invoked only on the same subject matter and beyond the limitation period reckoned from the original assessment order. The Tribunal also found that the notice and revisional order did not rest on a sustainable basis and that the issue of corpus donations had already been considered in assessment proceedings.
Conclusion: The order under section 263 was held to be beyond limitation and unsustainable, and it was quashed.
Issue (iii): Whether the consequential addition and penalty survived after the revisional order was set aside.
Analysis: Once the revisional order was quashed, the foundation for the addition made in the giving-effect assessment disappeared. The penalty based on that addition also lost its substratum.
Conclusion: The consequential addition and penalty did not survive and were deleted.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in all connected appeals, with the revisional order, consequential addition, and penalty all set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order under section 263 cannot be sustained when it is initiated beyond the statutory period counted from the original assessment order and concerns an issue already examined in the scrutiny assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
