DCIT (E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the basis for the re-assessment (the Section 263 order) was quashed, the consequential re-assessment order was invalid. The CIT(A)'s decision to deem the re-assessment order infructuous was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust's assessment order was set aside by the CIT under Section 263, leading to a re-assessment. However, the ITAT had previously quashed the CIT's Section 263 order. The CIT(A) then held the re-assessment order as infructuous.
What were the issues?
Whether a re-assessment order passed pursuant to a Section 263 revision order is valid if the Section 263 order itself is subsequently quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM
O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 13.01.2023 for assessment year 2014-15.
The main grievance of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the appeal of the assessee. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee trust filed its return of income on 30.09.2014 for AY 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee trust is registered as a Charitable Organization with DIT(Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 07.10.2009. Later, the return of income was taken up for scrutiny and original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed by AO by passing the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 which was set aside by the Ld. CIT(E) exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 29.03.2019. 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Sir Dorabji Tata Trust And pursuant to the revision order u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2019, the AO gave effect to it on 31.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w. section 263 of the Act by framing re-assessment of total income at Rs.128,08,46,000/-. 4. Meanwhile, the assessee trust had preferred an appeal before this Tribunal against the revision order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2019 which was allowed by the Tribunal in for AY 2014-15 by order dated 28.12.2020 wherein the Tribunal was pleased to quash the revision order of the Ld. CIT(E). This important fact the assessee brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the Tribunal has quashed the Ld. CIT(E)’s revision order u/s 263 of the Act, which was the basis for re- assessment order that has been passed by AO and pleaded that re- assessment order of AO cannot survive in the light of the Tribunal quashing Ld. CIT(E)’s section 263 revision order; and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC appreciating the same has upheld the plea and passed the impugned order holding that the re-assessment order dated 31.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w. section 263 of the Act has become infructuous. And resultantly, he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the revenue is before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the AO has framed the re-assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. section 263 of the Act dated 31.12.2019, pursuant to the revision order passed by Ld. CIT(E) u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2019, which has been quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.2020 (supra), 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and therefore, the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) holding the action of the AO framing re-assessment as infructuous is valid because the case of the assessee trust is squarely covered by the legal Maxim “Sublato Fundamento credit opus” meaning in case foundation is removed, the super-structure falls. In the case of Badarinath Vs. Tamilnadu AIR 2000 (SC) 3243 SC the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the basis of proceeding is gone, all consequential order and acts would fall on the ground automatically which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is legally correct. And therefore, the revenue appeal stands dismissed.
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 →- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Som Nath Nagar Mal Th Partner Sanjay Mahajan vs. Union Of INDIA Th Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 2 Nov 2026
- Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026