TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in assuming that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on an assumption that the AO has not examined the issues properly. 3. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in passing an order u/s 263 without bringing any material on record to show that the order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and erroneous. 4. The learned Pr. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee received share application money in the financial year 2012-13 and the same is converted into reserves and surplus by allotting shares, therefore, erred in passing an order u/s 263 assuming that the order u/s 143(3) is err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r had not examined the issue of large share premium received during the relevant previous year and also found some discrepancies regarding valuation of shares and applicability of provisions of section 14A etc. Since the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue property, the ld.PCIT found that the assessment order dt.20.12.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act and issued show cause notice dt.12.11.2018. In response to which, the authorized representative of the assessee company filed submissions. On verification, the submissions made by the assessee company were not accepted by the ld.PCIT and hence, he revised the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dt.20.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive staff is reduced to minimum as there are no day to day management of the company. Therefore, the order sent by email was not noticed by the staff or management. Subsequently, the notices sent by the Assessing Officer, inconsequential proceedings also not noticed, therefore, the assessment resulted into an ex-party order, without considering the paper book submitted before the Principal Commissioner. However, the Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1) issued a reminder in respect of payment of tax arrears, this letter was noticed by the Auditors of the assessee who have reminded the assessee in respect of receipt of order of the Principal Commissioner and also subsequent assessment order. At this stage it was realised that no appeals have been fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing of the appeal. We find that prima facie the reasons given by the assessee, in the petition for condonation of delay of 988 days, seems to be not bona fide. We have gone through the reasons submitted by the Director of the assessee company and also examined the sequence of events and after considering necessary facts, we are of the considered view that the reasons given by the assessee in the petition are not bona fide. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the reasons given by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 9. Be that as it may, coming back to the legal position evolved by the decision of various High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition filed by the assessee, we could easily make out a case that the assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal against the order of ld.PCIT. Therefore, in our considered view, for these vague reasons, such huge delay of 988 days in filing of the appeal, cannot be condoned. 11. Further, the assessee's reasons in the petition do not come under reasonable cause as prescribed under the Act, for condonation of delay. Hence, we reject the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 12. In our view, the reasons given by the assessee are devoid of any merit and not sustainable in the eyes of law. If we look into the reasons, it is clear that the explanation given is that th....