Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Accenture Services Private Limited [as a successor to Accenture Services Private Limited (‘ASPL’) which has merged Into ASOL with an effective date of 1 December 2016] Plant No. 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli (West), Off L.B.S. Marg, Mumbai - 400079 [PAN of ASPL:AACCA8997K] [PAN of ASOL:AAACH3235M] …………… Appellant The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai Vs 481(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Nishant Thakkar Shri Hiten Chande For the Respondent/Department : Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date Conclusion of hearing : 19.04.2023 Pronouncement of order : 11.07.2023
O R D E R
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal arises from the order dated 16/01/2019, passed 1. by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act rectifying the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
(Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee appearing before us placed on 2. record copy of order, dated 04/01/2022, passed by the Tribunal in appeal preferred by the Assessee/Appellant for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (ITA No. 530/Mum/2018) and submitted that the appeal has become infructuous.
On perusal of the above order of the Tribunal, we find that the 3. appeal arising from Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 was decided by the Tribunal vide order, dated 04/01/2022 holding as under: “ 22 Thus the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Honourable Supreme court in case Maruti Suzuki Limited (supra) 23 In view of this, we adjudicate ground 17 of the appeal of the assessee, which was admitted as an additional ground of appeal
, in favour of the assessee holding that assessment order passed by the assessing officer in the name of a non existing company, despite having prior information provided by the assessee and such facts recorded in the draft assessment order as well as the final assessment order, suffers from jurisdictional defect and, therefore, same is set aside. Accordingly, we hold that the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer is without jurisdiction and hence, quashed.
24. In view of our decision in ground 17 of the appeal, all other grounds of appeal become infructuous and same are dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, the Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2013-14 has 4. been quashed by the Tribunal and therefore, the present appeal arising from order, dated 16/01/2019, passed under Section 154 of the Act rectifying the aforesaid Assessment Order becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is dismissed as being infructuous.
(Assessment Year: 2013-14) In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is dismissed. 5.
Order pronounced on 11.07.2023.