SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT.LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT had previously quashed the section 263 order. Consequently, the present assessment order and the subsequent appeal have become infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08. The assessment order was passed pursuant to a revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the current appeal is maintainable when the underlying revision order has been quashed by the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश /O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Learned CIT (Appeals)-8, New Delhi dated 11.03.2019 and pertains to the assessment year 2007-08.
At the outset, in this case, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment order in this case has been passed, pursuant to a revision order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submitted that the said 263 order has been quashed by the ITAT in ITA
I.T.A.No.5478/Del/2019 No. 3011/Del/2017 for assessment year 2007-08 by order dated 06.06.2021.
Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the authorities below. Upon careful consideration, we find that the ITAT in the aforesaid order has clearly quashed Section 263 order. It is pursuant to the said 263 order that this present assessment order has been framed and consequent appeal has come to the learned CIT(Appeals) and thereafter before to us. Since the said Section 263 order has been quashed this present appeal has become infructuous, accordingly, we hold that this appeal deserves to be dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18/01/2023
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026