TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.18 is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The Pr. CIT erred in directing the officer to re-do the assessment for verifying the agricultural activities of the assessee, that have been examined and concluded in the proceedings under sec. 143(3) of the Act. 3. The Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the order of the assessing officer passed u/s. 143(3) dated 01.10.15 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and his direction to examine the issue afresh is untenable in law. 4. The Pr. CIT further failed to appreciate that the officer had considered the cultivation of silver oak in the midst of the coffee plantations by assessee and hence the observation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT, in any event, ought to have duly considered the catena of decisions by various Courts holding that the officer having considered the issue and reached a conclusion in the course of assessment, action u/s. 263 is not permissible merely because he entertains a different view and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. The CIT, in any view of the matter, ought to have seen that the twin conditions, namely, that the order of the officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue are not satisfied and hence the order u/s. 263 needs to be cancelled." 2. The Pr. CIT observed from the assessment records, that the assessee had admitted timber receipts in the income and expenditure account pertaining to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, there is a delay of 353 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay as follows:- "The petitioner submits that the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Madurai dated 15.02.2018 was received on 26.03.2018. The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 25.05.2018 Instead, the appeal was filed on 08.05.2019 resulting in a delay of 353 days. The petitioner submits that after the order of the Pr. CIT was served, there was a marriage function in the house. Later, the assessee fell sick for a brief period. The auditor who had been attending to the tax matters of assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same, hear and dispose it off on merits and thus render justice." 5. The ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay for the reasons mentioned in the petition. 6. The ld. DR strongly opposed the same and submitted that the delay was not explained by the assessee properly and there is no sufficient and good reason to condone the delay. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the Pr. CIT passed the order on 15.2.2018 received by the assessee on 26.3.2018. The appeal ought to have been filed by the assessee on or before 25.5.2018 before this Tribunal. However, the appeal was filed on 8.5.2019. Thus there was a delay of 353 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee explained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... very fact that the assessee did not explain the reason for delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal on account of medical reason as there is no supporting document to say that the assessee fell sick. Secondly, the assessee submitted that it failed to bring to the notice of the Auditor who had been attending the tax matters of assessee also did not inform the assessee of the need to file appeal before the Tribunal. Even here, the assessee has not mentioned the name of the auditor who attended before the Pr. CIT during the course of proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. Thirdly, it was stated there was a marriage in the family during the time when it received the impugned order of Pr. CIT. Even here, the assessee has not mentioned which fa....