M/S. T. J. AGRO FERTILISERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, VALSAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, after conducting detailed enquiries as per the PCIT's direction, made no variation to the returned income. Since the assessee had no grievance against the fresh assessment order, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 263, accepting the returned income without any variation.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal against a section 263 order becomes infructuous when a subsequent assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 accepts the returned income without variation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Honble & Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, Honble
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Valsad dated 27.02.2017 passed under section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of order passed by Ld. PCIT. The appeal came up hearing on 10.02.2021. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the service of notice through registered post. However, on perusal of record, we find that assessee has filed written synopsis, which was sent through registered post. In T.J.Agro Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. PCIT, Valsad/ the written synopsis the assessee stated that in pursuance of direction of order under section 263 dated 27.02.2017, the Assessing Officer in order to giving effect of the order of Ld. PCIT made detailed enquiry and passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2017 and accepted the returned income. In the written synopsis, the assessee further stated that, they have no grievance against the order under section 263 of the Act after passing fresh assessment order by the Assessing Officer on 28.12.2017 under section 143(3) rws 263 and that appeal may be decided accordingly.
Perusal of assessment order reveals that the assessing officer after making enquiry as per direction of order Ld. PCIT and passed assessment order under section 153(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 28.12.2017. 4. We have verified from Ld.CIT-(DR), if the written synopsis filed before the Bench, is received by him. The Ld.CIT-(DR) fairly submits that he has received the written submission of assessee and the copy of assessment order under section 143(3) rws 263 dated 28.12.2017 passed in pursuance of direction of Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(DR) submits that appeal of the assessee may be decided in accordance of law.
T.J.Agro Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. PCIT, Valsad/
We have considered the written synopsis of assessee, and the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, in pursuance of the direction of the PCIT and no variation in the returned income is made by the AO, thereby accepted the contention of assessee. In our view, once after making detailed enquiry as per the direction of Ld. PCIT, no variation is made in the returned income and that the assessee has no grievance in its appeal filed before the Tribunal. In our view, the appeal filed by assessee have become infructuous and dismissed as such.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 10th February 2021 by placing result in the notice board. (Dr.ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) (लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ("याियक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) सुरत/ Surat, िदनांक Dated: 10th Feb 2021/#SGR Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order / // /
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 →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026