Revision u/s 263 valid for assessment omitting post-assessment Valuation report despite subsisting limitation; typographical errors curable; permissible despite pending appeal on undecided issues and junior authority approval u/s 153D.

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Guwahati [hereinafter referred to Ld. 'Pr. CIT'] passed u/s 263 (erroneously mentioned as section 264 in the header of the order) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 dated 29.03.2024.

1.1 The Registry has informed that all the appeals are barred by limitation by 550 days. The assessee has filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay and explaining the reasons as mentioned below:

“I, Atul Tamuli, S/o: Late. Mohendra Nath Tamuli aged about 51. years, residing at C/O M/S TAMULY TWO WHEELERS, STATION ROAD STATION ROAD, DHEMAJI 787057, Assam, India, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. I am competent to swear this affidavit and well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present appeal filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), Central NER, Guwahati, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the relevant assessment years.

2. During the pendency of my appeal before the CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years, the learned PCIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 and passed revisionary orders directing the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments.

3. The PCIT order was served on me on 29.03.2024, and I became aware of it on 06.10.2025, while preparing for filing an appeal before ITAT against the CIT(A) order for A Y. 2019-20. The statutory period of 60 days for filing the appeal expired on 27.05.2024. Consequently, the present appeal is being filed on 02.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 556 days.

4 The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond my control, which I explain as follows:

a) At the time the PCIT’s Section 263 order was received, appeals for the same assessment years were already pending before the CIT(A). This created genuine confusion regarding the interplay of proceedings before CIT(A) and Section 263 revision, and the correct appellate remedy to protect my interests.

b) The PCIT order incorrectly mentioned Section 264 in the heading, whereas the operative part referred to Section 263. This inconsistency further compounded the uncertainty about the validity of the order and the appropriate forum for appeal. Further, this created a lot of conflicts with the Accountant. I assumed that the accountant has applied 264 proceedings without my knowledge.

c) Given the complexity of multiple overlapping proceedings, I sought detailed guidance from qualified chartered accountants and legal practitioners. They advised that the Section 263 order had potential legal infirmities and that its challenge needed to be filed independently before ITAT. Multiple rounds of consultations and obtaining written advice took significant time.

d) Clarifying this legal position required careful consideration and professional guidance to avoid any procedural error that could prejudice my case and multiple appeal fees.

5. The delay in filing the present appeal was therefore neither intentional nor deliberate It occurred solely due to the bona fide circumstances described above, including overlapping proceedings, typographical errors in the PCIT order, multiple consultations with professionals, and careful legal analysis to safeguard my rights.

6. I sincerely submit that the delay should