Jaykant Uttamchand Shah, Vapi V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax , Valsad

ITA 276/SRT/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jaykant Uttamchand Shah against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad, which was passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment order under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2012-13 was passed on 10/03/2015. The Principal Commissioner revised this order on 21/03/2017, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal primarily due to the excessive delay in filing, which was not adequately explained by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302116 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Period of limitation; Ignorance of law
• Section: 263; 143(3); 54B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 276/Srt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13) (Physical hearing) Jaykant Uttamchand Shah, 238, Maniratna Building, B/H, Jain Temple, Nehru Street, Vapi-396191. PAN No. AAACY 1854 F Vs. P.C.I.T., Valsad. Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 31/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 05/04/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, J.M. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad (in short, the ld. Pr. CIT dated 21/03/2017 for the Assessment year (AY) 2012-13, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 setting aside the order of A.O. passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 10/03/2015 for the year under consideration although said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in observing that claim for deduction u/s 54B of the act to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- ITA No. 276/Srt/2022 Jaykant Uttamchand Shah Vs Pr CIT 2 is not allowable and thereby erred in giving directions to A.O for making re-computation. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in giving directions to A.O. for making verification of unsecured loans, sundry creditors and items of expenditure in P&L Account. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that order passed by Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the order of A.O. and directing A.O. to pass fresh assessment order may please be quashed. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Perusal of record reveals that the impugned order was passed by the ld. Pr.CIT on 21/03/2017, however, the present appeal is filed by assessee on 27/09/2022. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Registry of this office has calculated the delay of 1956 days in filing the appeal, before the Tribunal. 3. The notice of hearing of the appeal was served on the assessee by way of registered AD on more than two occasions. The notice sent for hearing fixed on 31/3/2023 returned back by the postal authority with the remark, which is not readable. The notice was sent as per address mentioned on Form-36. Despite service of notice on more than two occasions, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and hearing the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT- DR) for the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the impugned order was passed by the ld. Pr. CIT on 21/03/2017, however, ITA No. 276/Srt/2022 Jaykant Uttamchand Shah Vs Pr CIT 3 this appeal is filed in 2022 i.e. after about more than five years. The assessee has not explained the delay. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue prayed that the delay may not be condoned and the appeal be dismissed as unadmitted. 4. We have considered the submission of ld. CIT-DR for the revenue and perused the record. On perusal of record, we find that the assessment order under section 143(3) /147 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 10/03/2015. The assessment was revised by the ld. Pr. CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 21/03/2017. The present appeal is filed on 22/09/2022, which is beyond 1956 days of period of limitation. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The application is not supported by affidavit of assessee. In the application for condonation of delay, the applicant/assessee has contended that the order under Section 263 dated 21/03/2017 was received by him. He was required to file appeal on or before 20/05/2017, we could not file appeal being a small business man, not well-versed with the income tax law and was not informed by his counsel. We find that the assessee has not given any reasonable or plausible explanation for such a long delay. Merely pleading that he is a small person and not well versed with the tax law is not sufficient. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. The cause of delay is not convincing. No other reason for condoning ITA No. 276/Srt/2022 Jaykant Uttamchand Shah Vs Pr CIT 4 such a long delay of more than 5 ½ years is explained. Neither the assessee nor his representative came forward to attend the hearing before the Tribunal, despite the service of notice at the address provided in Form-36. Thus, we do not find any justifiable reason of such a long delay, therefore, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal of assessee is also dismissed being unadmitted. 5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 05/04/2023 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat