##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“D” BENCH, MUMBAI

SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.4178/MUM/2025

(Assessment Year:2011-2012)

Mayur Govindbhai Patel

C-3002, HDIL Metropolis Tower, J. P. Road,

Andheri West, Mumbai - 400053.

Maharashtra

[PAN: AAGPP3288B] …………. Appellant

Vs

Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1),

Mumbai

Room No.608, 6^th Floor, Piramal Chambers,

Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent

Appearance

For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Dhaval Shah

For the Respondent/Department : Shri Umashankar Prasad

Date

Conclusion of hearing : 30.10.2025

Pronouncement of order : 23.12.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order,

dated 15/03/2021, passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of

Income Tax, Mumbai - 20 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCIT’

under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Assessment Order, dated 27/12/2017,

passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was set

aside as being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of

Revenue.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law

and in facts in issuing notice and passing the revision

ITA No.4178/Mum/2025

Assessment Year 2011-2012

order u/s.263 of the Act which is invalid and bad in the

eyes of law.

2. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law

and in facts in passing the order without satisfying the

conditions laid down u/s.263 of the Act.

3. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax has erred

in law and in facts in passing the revision order in

violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law

and in facts in directing the assessing officer to assessee

the genuineness of loan transaction of Rs.52,40,000/-.”

3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Learned Departmental

Representative pointed out that the appeal preferred by the Assessee

was delayed by 1481 days.

4. Explaining the reasons for delay in filing the present appeal, Learned

Authorized Representative for the Assessee took us through the

application seeking condonation of delay, the supporting affidavit of

the Assessee and confirmation letter issued by the earlier chartered

accountant engaged by the Assessee for handling tax matters for the

Assessment Year 2011-2012. The Learned Authorized Representative

for the Assessee submitted that the present appeal was preferred

against the order of revision passed under Section 263 of the Act. It

was submitted that the 263 proceedings were conducted during the

Covid-19 pandemic period and therefore, the Assessee could not

comply with the notice of hearing issued under Section 263(1) of the

Act. The Assessee was affected by Covid-19 and was quarantined.

During the said period the Assessee was not attending office. On

account of financial constraints faced by the Assessee during the

Covid-19 period the Assessee was compelled to discontinue the

services of chartered accountants which also disrupted the tax

compliances. The Assessee started going to office in March, 2022 and

thereafter, on checking the emails came to know about the order,

2

ITA No.4178/Mum/2025

Assessment Year 2011-2012

dated 15/03/2021, passed by the Learned PCIT under Section 263 of

the Act and the consequent proceedings under Section 143(3) read

with Section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessee approached the

earlier chartered accountant, who advised the Assessee to participate

in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section

263 of the Act since the same were already underway. It was

submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee

that as the limitation for filing appeal under Section 263 of the Act had

expired, the Assessee was advised not to file appeal against the same.

The Assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section

263 o