TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red u/s.263. 3. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had duly called for and verified the details regarding the purchase of property during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3). 4. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke the provisions of section 263 to substitute his view on the issue which has already been considered by the Assessing Officer. 5. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For that without prejudice to the above, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that no addition can be made in the hands of the appellant since the entire consideration for the property purchased during the impugned assessment year was paid by the appellant's husband. PRAYER For these grounds and such other grounds that may be adduced before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to (a) Quash the order passed u/s.263 and /....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the Ld.DR are reproduced as under: 1. Background of the case: The appellant had filed appeal before Hon'ble ITAT against the order of 263 dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Pr. CIT-I, Chennai. The Pr. CIT had initiated the proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act against the assessment order passed by ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 2(5), Chennai dated 26.5.2016 where the return of income filed by the appellant was accepted. The PCIT found that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and issued notice u/s.263 of the IT. Act. Before the PCIT, Shri Chandanmal Jain, CA has appeared for hearing. It is seen from the assessment order that the same Shri Chandanmal Jain, CA only appeared before Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT had passed a speaking order vide dated 20.11.2018 by setting aside the assessment order u/s.263 of the I. T. Act with a direction to redo the assessment. The appellant did not prefer any appeal against the 263 order within the statutory time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act. Upon receipt of the 263 order, the AO had passed the order giving effect to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 7. During the course of appeal before ITAT, several paper books were filed on 28.2.2022 and 3.6.2022. Those paper books were signed by K. Vishva Padmanabhan, Authorised Representative and H. Y eshwant Kumar, Authorised Representative. Presuming that these two people were also CA by profession, the appellant was capable of engaging multiple chartered accountants on different occasions. These two CAs were third and fourth and CA engaged by her. 8. This demonstrates that she is very well aware the income tax proceedings and its procedures and capable of representing the cases before any authority by engaging multiple CAs. 9. Her ignorance of law and procedure in filing appeal mentioned in her affidavit is not appears to be true and genuine .. 10.In this connection the latest order of Jurisdictional ITAT 'A' Bench, Chennai pronounced on 23.5.2022 in the case of Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha in ITA No. 983/Chny/2020 is relied upon. 11.The Hon'ble ITAT observed in that case that the appellant engaged a CA before the assessment proceedings and she had engaged one ITP before the first appellate authority and she had engaged same ITP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay kindly be dismissed. As the appellant have alternate remedy where she had filed appeal before CIT(A) against the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the IT Act, dismissal of this appeal will not cause any injustice to the appellant. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay of 581 days. We have also carefully considered the reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. We find that prima facie the reasons given by the assessee, in her Affidavit for condonation of delay of 581 days, seems to be not bona fide. Further, in the petition filed for condonation of delay, the assessee claimed that she was not aware of law that an appeal can be filed against the order of the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, and further, an advice from the Counsel, Mr.T.Banusekar, CA, she came to know that there is a provision to file appeal against the revision order and thus, she took decision to file appeal, which caused delay of 581 days. We have gone through the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also examined sequence of events and after considering necessary facts, we are of the considered view that the reasons given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the reasons given by the assessee in her petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. Be that as it may. Coming back to the legal position evolved by the decision of various High Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases, where it has been, time and again, held that when merits and technicalities pitted against each other, then merit alone deserves to be prevailed, because, if you throw out a meritorious case out of judicial scrutiny on the grounds of technicalities, then you may deprive the right of the petitioner in pursuing their case. At the same time, various Courts have held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly, within the time bound prescribed under the Act. Further, in a case, where, for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the appeal could not be filed, then the Courts are well equipped with power to condone the delay, if the petitioner explains the delay in filing of the appeal with a reasonable cause. ....