Bandigadi Chandrappashetty Rajashekara Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore held that initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by CIT based on the recommendation of the AO is not maintainable. Accordingly, revisionary order set aside and appeal allowed.
Facts- The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee, however, it is filed with a delay of 1249 days. The assessee in the Affidavit submitted that delay is due to two reasons i.e. COVID19 and further the email id of Tax Practitioner was furnished in the Income-tax Return. Therefore, all the notices issued by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act were unnoticed. Consequentially, the order u/s 263 of the Act was framed by the ld. CIT ex-parte to the assessee.
Conclusion- Pune Tribunal in the case of Alfa Laval Lund AB has held that as the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal to the ld. CIT and then the latter passing the order u/s 263 of the Act on the basis of such a proposal, we hold that it became a case of jurisdiction deficit resulting into vitiating the impugned order.
Held that the proceedings were initiated under section 263 of the Act by CIT on the recommendation of the AO. Thus, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts of the case discussed in the case of Pune Tribunal. Accordingly, and respectfully following the case cited above, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the impugned order is not maintainable. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
