ACIT,CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S GEHNA JEWELLERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in setting aside order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 2 M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

31.08.2017 on the basis of tribunals decision in 31.08.2017 on the basis of tribunals decision in 31.08.2017 on the basis of tribunals decision in and thereby allowing ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017 and thereby allowing ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017 and thereby allowing assessee's appeal. assessee's appeal. ii. 'Whether on the 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's appeal by setting aside order allowing assessee's appeal by setting aside order allowing assessee's appeal by setting aside order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017, without u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017, without u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017, without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has appreciating the fact that the Revenue has appreciating the fact that the Revenue has preferred appeal against the tri preferred appeal against the tribunals decision bunals decision setting aside order dated 24.03.2017 u/s 263 of setting aside order dated 24.03.2017 u/s 263 of setting aside order dated 24.03.2017 u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961'before Hor'ble Bombay High Court, the IT Act, 1961'before Hor'ble Bombay High Court, the IT Act, 1961'before Hor'ble Bombay High Court, which is still pending. which is still pending. iii. "The appeallant craves leave to amend or alter any "The appeallant craves leave to amend or alter any "The appeallant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be ground or add new ground which may be ground or add new ground which may be necessary." necessary."

2.1 Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not controvert that all the grounds on which that all the grounds on which proceedings u/s proceedings u/s 263 was invoked, have already been quashed by the Tribunal (supra). Since, have already been quashed by the Tribunal (supra). Since, have already been quashed by the Tribunal (supra). Since, the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT has already been quashed the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT has already been quashed the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT has already been quashed and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Act cannot survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Act cannot survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute. The grounds raised by the dispute. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. Revenue are accordingly dismissed.

3. M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.