SUGYANI KUMARI SAHU,POLASARA vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 132/CTK/2023Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 May 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a consequential order had already been passed giving effect to the Section 263 order and the assessee had chosen to pursue an alternate remedy before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the Principal CIT's order to avoid prejudicing the assessee's case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the assessee did not appear before the Principal CIT during revisionary proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT should interfere with a Section 263 order when a consequential order has been passed and the assessee is pursuing 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: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Hearing: 22/0Pronounced: 22/0

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 dated 28.2.2022 passed u/s.263 of 28.2.2022 passed u/s.263 of the Act in Appeal No. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar-1/Revision-263/100000299506/2021 263/100000299506/2021 for the assessment year assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld CIT Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 3

3.

It was submitted by ld CIT DR that in this case the consequential order has been passed u/s.143(3)/263 of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee has not represented before the Ld. Pr. CIT during the revisionary proceedings. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. 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 as 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 22/05/2024.

Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 22/05/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)

P a g e 2 | 3 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sugyani Kumari Sahu, W/O. Premchand Sahu, At/PO/PS: Polasara, Dist: Ganjam 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →