HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 12(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1245/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 July 2022AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT's order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed by the Tribunal in a prior appeal, the assessment order itself was unsustainable. Therefore, the additions made in the assessment order were directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment order was a consequence of a previous order passed by the CIT under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed pursuant to a CIT's order under Section 263 is valid if the Section 263 order is subsequently quashed. The validity of additions made in the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 13/07/2022Pronounced: 13/07/2022

ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-35, New Delhi dated 27.12.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2006-07

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO who framed the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 u/s.143 (3) r.w.s.

263 of the Act assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.28,66,63,716/.

3.

At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that the impugned assessment order has been framed pursuant to the order of the CIT-4, Delhi framed u/s. 263 of the Act. and that order of the CIT has been quashed by this Tribunal in order dated 24.02.2020.

4.

The DR fairly conceded to this.

5.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Counsel the impugned assessment order is dated 28.03.2013 which has been framed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.

6.

We find that the order of the CIT framed u/s. 263 of the Act was challenged before this Tribunal in and this Tribunal has quashed the said order of the CIT framed u/s. 263 of the Act. The relevant findings read as under :-

“60. Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order passed by the ld. CIT on the only ground that the assessee is not engaged in the manufacture of any article or thing, but this issue is no longer res integra as assessee in its own case held to be engaged in manufacture or production of an article or thing. Moreover, since the Id. CIT only modified the assessment directing the AO to withdraw the deduction for additional depreciation allowed u/s 32(l)(iia) but has not set aside the assessment to be framed afresh, Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act relied upon by the Id. DR for the Revenue is not attracted. So, we are of the considered view that arguments addressed by the Id. DR and his reliance on umpteen number of judgments is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, impugned orders passed by the Id. CIT u/s 263 of the Act both dated 31.10.2011 for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 are not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be quashed.”

7.

Since the basis has been removed the super structure must fall. We direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

8.

Decision announced in the open court on 13.07.2022.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →