Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘A’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Pramod Kumar, Vice President:
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 15th January 2018, passed by the learned CIT(A), Ahmedabad-5, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12.
The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, without considering the fact that the appellant has preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT against order passed u/s 263 of the Act and the same is not yet decided by the ITAT.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding action of AO denying carry forward of business loss of Rs 63,97,536/- and Rs 8,60,45,753/- pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively by invoking provision of section 79 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the beneficial owner of the appellant company remains the same. The addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer is unjustified and unwarranted and should be directed to be deleted.
Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the learned CIT(A) has erred into not considering the fact that when a provision is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation then view in favour of the appellant is to be taken as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd, reported in 88 ITR 192 as the case of appellant is squarely covered by decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of M/s AMCO Power Systems Ltd. reported in 62 taxmann.com 350.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the fact that vide order dated 23rd April 2018 the Tribunal has quashed the very revision order under section 263 of the Act as a consequence to which the impugned assessment was framed. A copy of the said order has also been filed before us. Learned Counsel submits that the when the revision order itself is quashed by the Tribunal, the revision proceedings has no legally sustainable foundation and, therefore, the impugned proceedings/assessment order has become infructuous.
Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute the preliminary point so raised but relies on the order of the Assessing Officer nevertheless.
Having heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record, we find that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, once the very revision order, on the basis of which the impugned assessment order was framed, is quashed, the subsequent proceedings have been rendered infructuous. In this view of the matter, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and hereby quash the impugned assessment order as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 27th August, 2019.