TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld, CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction U/S 263 and has erred in holding as under:- That the assessee was not able to fully explain the contribution of capital of Rs. 4 crore and thus setting aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration. That the assessee was not able to explain the source of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 4.72 crore and thus setting aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration. That the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness and veracity of cash discount debited in its profit & loss account amountin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be condoned and the Assessee's Appeal may be admitted and may be heard on merits. 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) strongly opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee for condoning the huge delay of 312 days and she stated that before the lower authorities, the Assessee was represented by the qualified/Competent Advocate, hence, the question of ignorance of law and bonafide belief does not arise. Therefore, the delay may not be condoned and Appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed on this account. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that at the time of filing the Appeal before the Tribunal on 06.4.2016, the Registry has issued the Defect Notice and raised the defect vide Serial No. 11 stating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d lie when the order pursuant to the direction u/s. 263 would be passed. Hence appeal u/s. 263 could not be filed in time due to ignorance of law and bonafide belief as mentioned above. Therefore, when appeal was filed before Hon'ble Tribunal against order u/s. 263 as aforesaid, delay of 312 days happened due to the above mentioned reason which, it is submitted with great respect, was good and sufficient reason. It is therefore prayed that the delay may please be condoned as was condoned by Your Honours in the case of Sheena Exports in ITA 6001/De1./2013, Date of order 15-10-2014. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC)." Affidavit I N. K. Gupta son of Shri P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. That I was told by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate of Delhi that appeal ought to have been filed against the revision order u/s 263 as the remedy against such order lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 9. Accordingly I filed the appeal against the order u/s 263 before Tribunal on 06-04-2016 an against the assessment order thus passed before C!T(A), Rohtak on 08-04-2016. 10. That I was not aware about the above said remedy available before Tribunal nor was made aware by my Advocate Mr. Naman Sharma who was relatively new to the profession. 11. That due to above mentioned reason of my ignorance and absence of proper legal advice, could not file appeal against the order passed u/s 263 in time and the delay of 312 day resulted in fil....