Siddhartha Nautiyal ORDER
Siddhartha Nautiyal, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, in proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act vide order dated 17/03/2020 passed for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
"1. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act treating the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015/2106 passed by the DOT Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad [AO] on 12/12/2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue inasmuch as disallowance made by the AO u/s. 14A of the Act is concerned.
2. The learned Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts for not considering the submission of the appellant in right perspective before passing the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act.
3. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the one of the reason/ground for selection of scrutiny assessment was in relation to section 14A disallowance and when AO has come to a definite conclusion and took the particular view after considering material/records as available on record as well as submission of the appellant and made the disallowance U/S. 14A which has also not been challenged by the appellant, the mere fact that the learned Pr. CIT was of a different view, it cannot be a basis for action for revision of the assessment order on the ground that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The impugned order of revision u/s. 263 of the Act is thus wholly justified and bad in law and requires to be quashed.
4. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that when the AO has exercised the quasi judicial power vested in him in accordance with the laws and arrived at a conclusion on the fact and law then such conclusion could not be termed to be erroneous simply because the learned Pr. CIT did not feel satisfied with the conclusion. The section does not visualize the case of substitution of the judgment of the CIT for that of the AO.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter or delete all or any of the above grounds as well as to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal."
3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 470 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that delay is caused due to the fact that the appeal has been filed during the Covid pandemic period and accordingly, the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. We note that the assessee company received the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) on 25-03-2020. However, in view of the nation-wide lockdown from 24th March 2020, the Apex Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re MANU/SC/0358/2021 : [2021] 127 taxmann.com 72 (SC), took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country. Consequently, it was directed vide order dated 23-3-2020 that the period of limitation in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings, irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed under the general or special laws, shall stand extended with effect from 15-3-2020 till further orders. The suo motu proceedings were, disposed of issuing the directions in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15-3-2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15-3-2021. Thereafter, in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re