×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This appeal filed the assessee is arising out of the revision order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [in short PCIT] passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 16.03.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre -19(3) Mumbai (in short ‘ACIT’/‘ITO’/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 04.09.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is bar by limitation by 179 days. The assessee filed condonation petition dated 20.11.2018 stating the reason. It was contended that the PCIT passed order under section 263 of the Act dated 16.03.2018, which was received by the assessee on 27.03.2018. It was contended that vide revision order PCIT set aside the assessment framed by AO under section 143(3) of the Act dated 04.09.2015. The statutory time limit of 60 days prescribed under the Act for filing of appeal before Tribunal expired on 25.05.2018 and therefore there was a delay of 179 days in this petition. It was contended that the assessee’s regular tax consultant M/s Pradeep Kumar Singhi & Associates, who generally handles assessment and first appellate proceedings were unaware of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and Revision order passed. Accordingly, M/s Pradeep Kumar Singhi and Associates through M/s Aarthi Shah advised not to challenge the revision order rather pursue the matter before the AO. Affidavit of M/s Aarthi Shah partner of M/s Pradeep Kumar singhi and his Associates was also filed by assessee, wherein she stated the above said position and the relevant Para 6 to 8 of the affidavit reads as under: -
“6. That our firm generally handles tax matters only upto assessment/ first appellate proceedings and therefore we were not much conversant about the provisions under the Act that the said revision order under section 263 could be appealed before the Tribunal.
7. That I was also under an honest and bonafide belief that the consequential order that would be passed by the AO as per the direction of the PCIT only could be challenged in appeal.
8. That while complying with/drafting reply to the notice under section 142(1) dated 25 October 2018 issued by the AO for giving effect to s. 263 order and received by the assessee on 29 October 2018, the matter was again discussed with other tax experts and it was advised that the appeal can be filed against the said revision order.”
3. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee Shri Yogesh Thar that when they discussed the matter with other tax consultant who advised for filing of appeal and on his advised the appeal was file belated with the condonation of delay. In term of the above, the learned Counsel Shri Yogesh Thar urged for condonation of delay on the other hand the learned CIT Departmental Representative opposed the condonation of delay but he could not controvert that there was no advice from tax expert like Charter Accountants M/s Aarthi Shah.
4. We are of the view that the assessee has accepted bonafide advice of the tax consultant who was regularly looking after its tax matters but subsequently other consultant advised for filing appeal. We are of the view that this is a reasonable cause as the assessee’s tax