IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.129/AGR/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18)

Pr.CIT-1, Anshul Jain, Agra.

C/o Sri Shyam Narayan Vs.

Jain, Mohalla Kabir Ganj, Bhogoan, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh-205262.

PAN-AQGPJ6059E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. D.C. Mishra, Adv.

Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

O R D E R

[

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [‘Ld. PCIT’ in short] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short)

dated 31.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That, the notice under section 263 dated 28-03-2022, was not served upon the appellant, as it was neither served on person, nor on the registered e-mail as shown on his e-filing portal.

2. That, the order under section 263 dated 31-03-2022, was not served upon the appellant, as it was neither served on person, nor on the registered e-mail as shown on his e-filing portal.

3. That the appellant was denied opportunity of being heard or to file his submission, as he had no occasion to submit his written submissions.

4. That, the order under section 263 dated 31-03-2022, was not passed on 31-03-2023, as it was not uploaded on the e-filing portal of the appellant on 31-03-2023. Thus, the proceedings under section 263, were barred by limitation.

5. That, under facts of the case and in law, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Agra wrongly invoked the provisions of section 263 on the ground of no enquiry by AO in respect of cash deposits in Bank Account during demonetization period out of cash available at Rs.1,08,000 with his wife.

6. That, under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 26-11-2019 passed u/s 143(3) was not erroneous therefore, it was beyond the scope of section 263 of the Act.

7. That, under facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 31-03-2022 passed u/s 263, is without jurisdiction and as such, it deserves to be set aside.

8. That the appellate craves your honor’s leave to alter, amend, add or delete any ground of appeal.”

3. In Ground No.1 to 3, the assessee has challenged the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the grounds that the notice for initiation of proceedings was not served upon the assessee and the revisionary order was passed in haste without providing proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee.

4. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 487 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating that order of Ld. PCIT was uploaded through online e-filing portal on 31.03.2022, however, the assessee was never intimated about initiation or completion of any such proceedings u/s 263. The assessee for the first time come to know about any such proceedings only when the consequential assessment order dated 15.03.2023 was passed and served and demand was raised. Thereafter, the assessee obtained the certified copy of the order u/s 263 and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. All these facts were duly affirmed in the affidavit filed by the assessee.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors., in Civil Appeal no. 6731/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14562 of 2006) vide judgment dated 20.11.2008, has held that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial justice system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra ordinary situations in the ends of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprude