INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing)

ITA No. 126/AGR/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

O R D E R

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1. The appeal in ITA No.126/AGR/2023 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the Pr. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. Pr. CIT’, in short] dated 31.03.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 10.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Learned D.R. and based on materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of footwear. The assessee had originally filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 8,37,520/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act stood issued to the assessee. The assessee responded to all the notices issued by the Learned AO by producing the relevant documents together with the books of accounts, cash book and also explained the source for making cash deposits in the bank account. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 10-12-2019 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,00,084/- after making disallowance of car expenses, telephone expenses and travelling expenses on an ad hoc basis. This assessment was sought to be revised by the Learned PCIT by invoking revision jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by treating the order passed by the Learned AO as erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

4. In the revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued thereon. The learned PCIT on examination of records observed that the cash deposits made in the bank account had not been properly examined by the learned AO in addition to sundry creditors amounting to Rs 15,09,000/- were also not examined by the learned AO. Accordingly, he cancelled the entire assessment order framed by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act dated 10-12-2019 and directed the learned AO to pass a fresh order de novo after offering reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessing had preferred this appeal against the section 263 order passed by the learned PCIT.

5. We find that this appeal has been filed with a delay of one and half years approximately. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal as in our considered opinion, the assessee had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in the instant case. Further, the delay is very substantial and hence does not deserve to get condoned. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed as the appeal itself is not maintainable on the ground of delay.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03/02/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/-

(SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (M. BALAGANESH)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03/02/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to

1. Applicant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT (A)

5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi