An assessee is precluded from challenging the validity of a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act during an appeal against a consequential assessment order if the Section 263 order has attained finality, as the scope of such appellate review is strictly limited to verifying compliance with revisional directions.

आदेश/ORDER

Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Amicus Formulations India (P) Ltd, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld.CIT(A)”) dated 19.07.2024 for the A.Y 2017-18.

2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 336 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that two appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) were pending simultaneously for the year under consideration, one against the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 13.12.2019 and another against the consequential assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act dated 24.11.2022. The present appeal arises out of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the consequential assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. It was further submitted that the earlier counsel of the assessee had advised the assessee that the appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be filed after the disposal of the appeal pending before the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the original assessment order dated 13.12.2019. Subsequently, upon appointment of a new counsel, the assessee was advised to file the present appeal immediately without waiting for the outcome of the other appeal. The Ld. AR also submitted that during the relevant period, the director who was handling the tax matters of the assessee had resigned, which further contributed to the delay in filing the appeal. It was, therefore, contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and prayed for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 336 days in filing the appeal and the reasons furnished by the assessee are not sufficient to justify such delay. The Ld. DR, relying on following judicial precedents, contended that the delay should not be condoned and the appeal deserves to be dismissed on account of limitation:

(a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ANR Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR in the SLP (Civil) No.21096 of 2019, dated 03.04.2024.

(b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors Vs. The Special Dy. Collector (LA) SLP (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 dated 08.04.2024.

(c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagadish Singh & Ors (Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006), dated 08.07.2010.

(d) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd & ANR Vs. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (Special Leave Appeal) Civil No.9580/2025 dated 15.04.2025.

4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. We find that the assessee has explained the delay by stating that there was confusion due to pendency of multiple appeals arising from different orders for the year under consideration and that the earlier counsel had advised the assessee to defer filing of the present appeal. It is also noted that there was change in counsel and resignation of the director handling tax matters, which contributed to the delay. Ther