TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tating the following averments :- "1. The revision order dated 22-03-2019 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aurangabad was received on 22-03-2019. Accordingly the appeal was required to be filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal by 21-05- 2019. 2. The appeal however has been filed on 17-01-2022. In this way there is a delay of 972 in filing of the appeal. The. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) 438 ITR 296 (SC) has held that because of COVID-19 situation, in calculating/reckoning the date of limitation for filing the appeals, the period from 15-03-2020 to 30-09-2021 i.e. 564 days is to be excluded. As such there is actual delay of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was prevented from causing the appearance before the ld. CIT(A) on account of difficulties faced by the appellant on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking the cognizance of the difficulty faced by the country extended the various limitations prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case for condoning the delay. Hence, we condone the delay of 972 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of ginning and pressing of raw cotton. The Ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spond to the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to re-do the assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. It is submitted that the ld. PCIT had not granted reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the order of the ld. PCIT cannot be sustained in view of the direction of the ld. PCIT that in one hand to disallow the claim for exemption u/s 10(38) and on the other hand, assessment order was remanded to the Assessing Officer for examination of the claim. It is further submitted that the copy of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, the appellant took a plea that the issue was examined by the Assessing Officer, but preliminary objection taken before us is that the case was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, the question of examination of issue of genuineness of claim for exemption u/s 10(38) does not arise. The submission made by the assessee is contrary to the material on record. The appellant filed a copy of the scrutiny notice placed at page no.35 of the Paper Book which clearly mentioned that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. However, there was no mention in the said notice, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. In-fact, the Assessing Officer had issued various queries vide letter dated 31.10.2016. On mere perusal of the said notice,....