Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) which quashed an assessment order. The original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and later set aside by the CIT u/s 263. This revision order was subsequently quashed by the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal held that once the foundational revision order u/s 263 was quashed by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/263 could not survive and was infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether a consequential assessment order passed under Section 143(3)/263 can survive when the foundational revision order under Section 263 has been quashed by the ITAT.
Sections Cited
143(3), 263, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the appellate order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 29.09.2021 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2015-16 Bank of Baroda 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in quashing assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 29.09.2021 despite the department's appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court for adjudication against the Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 11.04.2022 wherein order u/s 263 of the Act dated 13.03.2020 was quashed.”
3. At the outset, it is noted that the instant appeal of the revenue is delayed by 126 days. A condonation application has been filed by the AO concerned stating that the appeal could not be filed in time due to pressing work in time barring and other official matters.On due consideration,we condone the delay.
4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a nationalised bank, formerly known as ‘Dena Bank’ and now Bank of Baroda, post amalgamation. The original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.12.2017 which was later set aside by the ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai u/s 263 of the Act on 13.03.2020.The assessee challenged the said order which was quashed by the ITAT, Mumbai vide dated 11.04.2022.
5. During pendency of that appeal, the AO passed the consequential order u/s 143(3)/263 on 29.09.2021. The assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging this order who vide order u/s 250 dated 27.01.2025 held that the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 was infructuous, since the very foundation of the order i.e. revision P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2015-16 Bank of Baroda order u/s 263 was already quashed by the ITAT. The Revenue has filed appeal against the impugned order of CIT(A) stating that the matter regarding 263 order is pending before the hon’ble Bombay High Court.
6. Before us, it is submitted by the ld.AR that once the foundational order u/s 263 stands quashed by the ITAT dated 11.4.2022, the consequential order passed u/s 143(3)/263 cannot survive and is infructuous as the superstructure collapsed with the foundation. The NFAC correctly treated the OGE infructuous. The ld.DR reiterated the ground of appeal.
7. We have duly considered all the relevant facts of the case. We hold that in view of the order passed by ITAT(supra), the ld.CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee, being infructuous and non est. We do not find any infirmity therein. Therefore, the appellate order is upheld and the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)