TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short "IT Act"). 2. Though Respondent No. 2 dismissed the application on merits, he also came to the conclusion that there was a huge delay of 1460 days in filing the Revision Application, and there was no proper explanation for the aforesaid delay. These findings of the Commissioner can be found in paragraphs 6 to 6.4 of the impugned order, which read thus:- "6. Before getting into the merits of the case, it is necessary to check whether the application is valid and is in order. As per provisions of section 264(3) of the I.T. Act, an application for revision u/s 264 of the I.T. Act must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him. The PCIT can admit an application made after the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, however, pertinent to mention that during the intervening period, the assessee was not only conducting business but also complying with the statutory liabilities like getting statutory audit done. In fact the due date of filing of return of income of assessee for various Assessment Years since the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 was filed are as under: S. No. A.Y. Date of filing Due date for filing 1. 2012-13 28.09.2012 30.09.2012 2. 2013-14 28.09.2013 30.09.2013 3. 2014-15 28.11.2014 30.11.2014 4. 2015-16 30.09.2015 30.09.2015 5. 2016-17 15.10.2016 17.10.2016 6. 2017-18 18.10.2017 31.10.2017 7. 2018-19 03.10.2018 31.10.2018 8. 2019-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter dated 08.06.2016, the assesse itself has submitted the statement of total income and computation of income which has been accepted by the AO. 6.4. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause and, therefore, this is not a fit case for condoning such a huge delay of 1460 days. Accordingly, the revision application of the assessee is not in order." 3. From the record, we find that the Petitioner had, along with the application under Section 264, also filed an application for condonation of delay. Along with that application, an affidavit was also filed. The only explanation given in the affidavit as well as in the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 19.02.2016 and the firm was made subject to Alternate Minimum Tax as provided u/s. 115JC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.7. Finally the dispute between the parties was settled in the year 2019 and consent terms were filed in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and accepting the same the Hon'ble Court disposed of the arbitration petition by its order dated 24.06.2019. 1.8. Thereafter, when the firm was in the process of regularizing it affairs; Mr. Sunderdas kankal (partner of the firm) expired on 17.03.2020. 1.9. Immediately thereafter, there was surge in COVID-19 cases in India and lockdown was imposed. 1.10. After filing the Income Tax Return for Assessment Ye....