ORDER

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(IT), Delhi-2 dated 03.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2. The assessee has filed this appeal with the delay of 84 days with the condonation petition alongwith affidavit. Referring to the petition for condonation of delay the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act was passed on 03.02.2025 and the due date for filing the appeal was 30.04.2025. However, the appeal was filed by the assessee on 23.07.2025 resulting in delay of 84 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee was out of India during that period and therefore, the delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was not deliberate and beyond the control of assessee.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessee infact filed an affidavit deposing that he was out of India during that period and the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and therefore, requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

4. On hearing both the parties and perusing the condonation petition alongwith affidavit furnished by the assessee, we find that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal by the assessee with delay of 84 days. Thus, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

5. Coming to the merits of the appeal the assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal :-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Delhi-2 (hereinafter referred as the CIT (IT)) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act'] is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned CIT (IT) under section 263 of the Act is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the period of limitation under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begin from the date of the order of assessment and not from the order of reassessment, wherein CIT has exercised revisional jurisdiction for reopening the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for the issues which was not the subject matter of reassessment proceedings.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT (IT) assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is bad in law and is liable to be quashed in the absence of twin conditions of the order passed by the A.O. being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, not satisfied.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT (IT) assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is bad in law and is liable to be quashed being AO has already made addition on the issue of reason recorded/information for re-opening assessment u/s 147 of the Act, thus order under revision is not erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (IT) has erred both on facts and in law by passing order u/s 263 in arbitrary and mechanical manner without giving a finding as to how assessment order shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue as per Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (IT) has erred both on facts and in law in passing order u/s That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned documentary evidences furnished by the appellant to rebut the 263 by arbitrarily rejecting the explanation along with allegation of siphoning of funds from Puni Lloyd Limited and its foreign branches as: M/s Punj Lloyd Limited and its foreign branches has not made alleged transactions of Rs 5,82,02,643, Rs 10,11,61,160 & Rs 10,11,45,713 with M/s Uni