TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order and notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act dated 23 March 2024, is erroneous and bad in law, facts and is hereby disputed. 1.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not providing opportunity of being heard and thereby ignoring relevant details and relying on surmises, suppositions and conjectures in support of additions. 1.4. The Ld. AO erred in not providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the Appellant as required under the law, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and hence the order requires to be considered void. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, Ld. AO has erred in considering the higher amount of book profit for computation of Minimum Alternate Tax u/s. 115JB of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Ld. AO has erred in considering tax rate of 30 percent instead of 25 percent while computing at the tax liability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....37631301118 for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2018- 19 declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,38,52,900 as per the normal provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Book profit of Rs. 5,34,00,732 was taxable under section ("u/s") 115JB of the Act and tax including interest thereon totaling to Rs. 1,18,08,674 was paid. Subsequently, the Company received notices u/s. 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act calling for certain information/details. The information called for was furnished from time to time. Thereafter the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") completed the assessment vide his order u/s. 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the of the Act dated 17 February, 2021 without making any additions to the total income of the Appellant. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 263 of the Act dated 24 February, 2023 was issued to the Appellant, to show cause as to why assessment order dated 17 February, 2021 should not be set aside. The Appellant submitted its response on 02 March, 2023 and objected to setting aside the order u/s. 143(3). However, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("Ld. PCIT") rejected the Appellant's contention. The Ld. PCIT considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforementioned assessment order issued by Ld. AO passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 23 March 2024 and penalty order u/s. 270A of the Act dated 27 September 2024. issued by Assessment Unit, the Appellant e-filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] on 23 November 2024 and 21 November 2024 respectively which are pending as on date of filing this appeal. Thereafter, the Company basis an independent advice wishes to file present appeal with Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") against the order issued u/s. 263 of the Act as the Company is of the view that the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) could be construed as not been filed at the correct forum. The Company was informed that since the genesis of the dispute in the case on hand emanates from the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, all the proceedings in consequence of the order of Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act including assessment order issued u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot be challenged until and unless the proceedings u/s. 263 are agitated by the Appellant before Hon'ble ITAT. The Appellant humbly submits that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) - Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, an appeal should be presented within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty order. - Computation of delay in filing an appeal against assessment order - Date of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment order was 29 March 2024. Therefore, an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was required to be filed within 28 April 2024. Aggrieved by the mistakes apparent from the record in the assessment order, the Appellant filed a rectification application u/s154 of the Act on 06 May 2024. The Appellant was of the bonafide belief that since mistakes apparent from record are the only grievances it had, therefore, the Company on a genuine and bonafide belief did not pursue an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the due date of filing of appeal. The Company regularly followed up with the Ld. AO office regarding the rectification application, however, Ld. AO did not act on the rectification application till date of filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) i.e. 7 months. Accordingly, the Appellant was prevented from filing an appeal within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... catena of cases it has been held that if remedy is pursued on wrong forum then if assessee is filling appeal in correct forum. In such a case, condonation of delay shall be allowed. Reliance is to be placed on the following judgments on a similar grounds: - Judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of Shri Anurag Rastogi Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Kanpur ITA No.360/LKW/2019 enclosed - Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhan (AIR 2009 SC 1927) enclosed - Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of - Pattherao Narsu Patil & Anr. Vs. Sou. Gangu A. Lad & Ors. (2019(2) Bom.C.R.436) enclosed - Judgment of Hon'ble Maharashtra Real State Appellate Tribunal in the case of Mysore Sainath Lavanya vs. M/s AkshayGruha in Appeal No. 0006000000021171 enclosed Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Kataji & Ors. laid down the following guidelines in condonation of delay: - Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the correct forum. The assessee company was informed that since the genesis of the dispute in the case on hand emanates from the order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, all the proceedings in consequence of the order of ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act including assessment order served u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot be challenged until and unless the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act are agitated by the assessee before the ITAT and hence the AR of the assessee submitted that there is a Bonafide and reasonable cause for the assessee company in not filing the appeal before this Tribunal within time allowed under the Act, which is evident from the fact that the company was pursuing alternate remedy available under the Act and appeared before the AO for consequential assessment proceedings and hence it may not treated as a case of "negligence" of the assessee. 5. The ld. D.R. fervently objected for condoning the substantial delay in the absence of any sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee and prayed to dismiss the appeal in limine. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6.1. It is worthwhile here to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd prescription as statutes of peace and repose. They envisage that a right not exercised or the remedy not availed for a long time ceases to exist. This is one way of putting to an end to a litigation by barring the remedy rather than the right with the passage of time. 9. Section 3 of the Limitation Act in no uncertain terms lays down that no suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or made after the period prescribed shall be entertained rather dismissed even though limitation has not been set up as a defence subject to the exceptions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act. 10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced herein below: "3. Bar of limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence." 11. Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application but since in this case we are concerned with appeal, we would hereinafter be mentioning about the appeal only i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, the same may not be true while construing Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It, therefore, follows that though liberal interpretation has to be given in construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act but not in applying Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which has to be construed strictly. 15. It is in the light of the public policy upon which law of limitation is based, the object behind the law of limitation and the mandatory and the directory nature of Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act that we have to examine and strike a balance between Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matters of condoning the delay. 16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors., this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.5 wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.6, where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. 22. It has also been set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature." (emphasis supplied) 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the AO u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 23/03/2024 & not against the Order passed by the ld. PCIT dated 30/03/2023 u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee company has no grievance against the order dated 30/03/2023 passed by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Our opinion also gets support from the averments made by the assessee that the grounds of appeal raised before us are same as raised in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the Order of assessment passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Further, on going through the application for the condonation of delay, the assessee also submitted that the assessee company did not raise any grounds relating to adjustments proposed by ld. PCIT in the appeal filed before us. Therefore, on this ground alone also the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the assessee company is not aggrieved by the Order of ld. PCIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025 ============= Document 1 K R Girish & Associates Chartered Accountants 10 April, 2025 Hey Brother andDe Income Tok Arim....