RAM GOPAL,KARNAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KARNAL
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263, which was the basis for the subsequent proceedings, was unsustainable and had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the consequential assessment order and the CIT(A) order were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was initially completed at Rs. 24,28,380. The PCIT revised this order under Section 263, directing a fresh assessment. The subsequent fresh assessment determined the income at Rs. 1,11,79,670, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether consequential assessment proceedings can survive when the revision order under Section 263, which initiated them, has been set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
The assessee has filed the present appeal against order dated 27.08.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal, for the assessment year 2013-14.
When the appeal was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
On perusal of record, it is noticed, on earlier occasions when the appeal was listed for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the fact that the orders passed by the Bench adjourning the matter to subsequent dates were uploaded in the official website. Since, the assessee has been granted sufficient opportunity of being heard, we do not find any valid reason for adjourning the matter any further. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and based on the materials on record.
We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,68,730/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.08.2015 determining the total income of Rs.24,28,380/-. Post completion of assessment, learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Karnal, called for and examined the assessment records of the assessee. Upon such examination, he was of the view that the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly, issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act. Ultimately, learned PCIT passed an order on 23.08.2016 setting aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order keeping in view the observations made in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. The order passed under Section 263 of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal.
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer, in compliance with the directions of learned PCIT in the order passed under section 263 of the Act, completed the assessment by making number of additions, which resulted in determination of total income at Rs.1,11,79,670/-.
Though, the assessee preferred appeal against the aforesaid assessment order before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us.
The facts on record reveal that the order passed under section 263 of the Act, which was subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in was disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2018. While disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal held that keeping in view the ratio laid down in the various judicial precedents, it cannot be said that there is any error in the order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Tribunal held the order passed under section 263 of the Act as unsustainable and set it aside. Admittedly, the present appeal before us arises out of consequential proceeding in pursuance to the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act by learned PCIT. Thus, when the order passed under section 263 of the Act has been set aside by the Tribunal in the order referred to above, the consequential proceedings cannot have any independent existence in absence of the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act. That being the legal position, the assessment order and order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in the present appeal, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, we do so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th May, 2022
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026