M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 144/CTK/2021Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 February 2023AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a consequential order giving effect to the Pr. CIT's order had already been passed, and the assessee was already in appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to interfere to avoid prejudicing the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263. The Pr. CIT's order was passed on April 27, 2020, for the assessment year 2015-16.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT should interfere with a Section 263 order when a consequential order has been passed and the assessee has opted for an alternate remedy before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CA
For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Hearing: 21/0Pronounced: 21/02

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar u/s.263 of the Act, dated 27.4.2020 Bhubaneswar u/s.263 of the Act, dated 27.4.2020 Bhubaneswar u/s.263 of the Act, dated 27.4.2020 in Appeal No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2020 ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1026986591(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gauta Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gauta Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was s It was submitted by ld AR that consequential order ubmitted by ld AR that consequential order giving effect to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 has already been passed and the assessee is by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 has already been passed and the assessee is by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 has already been passed and the assessee is in appeal before the ld CIT(A). in appeal before the ld CIT(A).

P a g e 1 | 2

4.

As it is noticed that the consequential order has already been passed giving effect to the order passed u/s.263 of the Act and the assessee has already opted for the alternate remedy of proceedings before the ld CIT(A), we feel that we should not interfere with the order passed by the ld Pr. CIT u/s.263 insofar as our view could prejudice the mind of the ld CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/02/2023.

1.

Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 21/02/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. POSCO India Pvt Ltd., Unit No.DCB 903, 9th floor, DLF Cybercity, IDCO Info Park, Chandaka Industrial Estate Patia, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 2 | 2

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →