TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee was not aware of anything as to when the appeal is to be filed as the assessee was not kept informed by the said counsel. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delayed filing of appeal has happened purely due to circumstances and reasons which are totally beyond the control of the assessee and is wholly attributable to the failure of the counsel of the assessee to act in the matter of filing the appeal diligently and as per law which he has hopelessly failed to do and therefore the assessee cannot be punished for the wrongs done or mistake on the part of the counsel of the assessee. Besides, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee met with an accident causing serious injuries and fracturing several bones due to which the assessee remained bed ridden thereby suffering adversely. In order to prove his averments, the ld Counsel took us through the affidavit filed, medical certificates and other records. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned so that appeal of the assessee could be heard on merit. In defense of his arguments, the ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of facts as gathered from the records is that there is a delay of 1769 days in filing of appeal by the assessee which was attributed to the failure of the counsel of the assessee who was handling and looking after the tax matters of the assessee. We also note that during this period, the assessee met with an accident fracturing several bones and also remained bed ridden for a long time. We have also perused the condonation application relating the sequence of reasons explaining the delay in filing the appeal. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, we find that the late filing of appeal there are reasons which were explained before us. In our opinion the delay in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice and fair play so that the appeal could be heard on merits of the case. The case of the assessee finds support from various decisions as cited before us a few of which are discussed hereinafter. In the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. MST Katji & ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down following principles: "i) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal in late ii) Refusing to condone delay can re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment was framed vide order dated 18.12.2013 passed u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act assessing the income at Rs. 23,86,168/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 6,92,232/-. Thereafter the PCIT upon examination of assessment records observed that the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reasons that the AO has not conducted any enquiry in respect of certain items appearing in the balance sheet and profit and loss account. Accordingly notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 19.01.2016 was issued which is reproduced as under: On examination of the assessment records for A.Y.2009-10, it appears that the Assessment Order passed by the then Income Tax Officer Ward-37(1), Kolkata (Now ITO, ward- 40(1),Kolkata), a's Assessing Officer, appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, since, the Assessing Officer has failed to make complete and full enquires and also passed the order without considering & examining the facts, information on record, as discussed herein under:- I) On perusal of the balance sheet submitted by you as on 31-03-2009 it is observed that a current l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income on 30.03.2010 and the return of the assessee was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income. The Ld. A.R. submitted that thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 4.10.2012 on the ground that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in respect of certain items of income as mentioned below. In other words the case of the assessee was reopened on the grounds that some items of expenses were not allowable as no TDS was deducted and deposited with the Govt. Treasury. The assessment u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was framed vide order dated 18.1.2013 assessing the income at Rs. 23,86,168/- by making addition in respect of four disallowance namely: i) Disallowance of artist remuneration ii) Disallowance of studio hire charges iii) Disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans iv) Disallowance of car hire charges, conveyance & depreciation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues as have been raised by the Ld. PCIT in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and finally as mentioned in the revisionary order were not the subject matter of the rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s barred by limitation as the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 19.01.2016. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that the doctrine of merger did not apply in the instant case as the issues sought to raised by the PCIT were not there in the re-assessment proceedings or re-assessment proceedings had nothing to do with the issues sought to be raised by PCIT and therefore the period of limitation has to be reckoned and commenced from the date of original assessment and not from the date of reassessment. In defense of its arguments, the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Aagendran Finance Ltd. reported in [2007] 293 ITR 1 (SC) and also the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in both these decisions, the Hon'ble Courts have held that the two years period of limitation shall run from the end of financial year in which the original assessment was framed and not from the end of financial year in which the reassessment was framed when the issue on which the assessment was revised was not subject matter of reassessment pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsecured loans and iv)Car hire charges, conveyance and dep. etc and not in respect of the issues raised by the ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The reassessment proceeding concluded and culminated vide order dated 18.12.2013 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Now the issue before us for adjudication is whether the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act in relation to the re-assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Act or whether revisionary proceedings are barred by limitation or not . We have perused the provisions of the Act and observe that the scope of powers of the AO in original assessment proceedings vis-a vis reassessment proceedings are not same. In order to decide the issue at hand we would like to dwell into the powers of the AO in the original assessment proceedings as well as the reassessment proceedings. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO has vast powers whereas in the reassessment proceedings the powers are limited though the AO has the power to assess any other item of income which is not subject matter of the reasons u/s 148(2) of the Act which co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Hon'ble Court has, therefore, held that doctrine of merger did not apply in the case of this nature and the period of limitation commences from the date of original assessment and not from the date of reassessment since the latter had not anything to do to lease equalisation fund and this was not a case where subject matter of assessment and subject matter of re-assessment were same. The Hon'ble Apex Court while passing the order has relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of CIT -vs.- Arbuda Mills (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Similar ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT -vs,- ICICI Bank Limited(Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that where the jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and which does not form the subject matter of the reassessment, the limitation must necessarily begin to run from the date of order passed under section 143(3) by observing and holding as under:- "Held, dismissing the appeal, that neither in the first reassessment nor in the second reassessme....