JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,NOIDA vs. PR, CIT, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 606/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 September 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no prejudice was caused to the assessee by the revisional order, as the subsequent assessment yielded the same loss. Therefore, the appeal was considered academic and infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a revisional order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17. The subsequent assessment order, passed in pursuance of the Section 263 directions, resulted in the same total loss as the original assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether a revisional order under Section 263 is valid if the subsequent assessment order does not alter the assessee's position. The infructuous nature of litigation when no prejudice is caused.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: DR यथ क ओर से /
Hearing: 12.09.2022

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida dated 28.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Act concerning AY 2016-17.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the revisional order dated 28.03.2021 passed u/s. 263 of the Act concerning A.Y. 2016-17.

3.

When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee interalia submitted that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 in pursuance of the directions u/s.263 of the Act has once again assessed the total loss at Rs.3,98,40,56,630/- which is identical to the loss assessed in the original assessment passed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act dated 10.12.2018 which order, has been subject matter to revision.

4.

In the light of facts pointed out on behalf of the assessee, apparently no prejudice subsists against the assessee by the impugned revisional order passed u/s. 263 of the Act which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.

5.

We thus do not consider it expedient spend judicial time on such academic and infructuous litigation.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

This Order was pronounced in the open court on 12/09/2022

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →