D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA vs. SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL, KOLKATA

There is a delay of 53 days in filing the Appeal by the Department. The Department filed application for condonation of delay contending that due to time taken for processing to the prescribed administrative channel for filing the Appeal and also while taking the

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed return of income of the Assessment Year 2013-14 at Rs.10,28,090/-. Subsequently, an Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act came to be passed on 30.03.2015 at an assessed income of Rs.10,28,090/-. The Ld. PCIT by exercising the power conferred u/s 263 of the Act, found that the said Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.03.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide Order dated 21.03.2017, set aside the Assessment Order and remanded the issue to file of the Assessing Officer for de novo Assessment with certain directions. Aggrieved by the Order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Ld. PCIT, Central Circle-2, Kolkata, Assessee preferred an Appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No.1896/KOL/2017. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide Order dated 03.01.2018, set aside the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Ld. PCIT, Central Circle-2, Kolkata. Meanwhile, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. PCIT dated 21.03.2017, Assessing Officer has already passed afresh Assessment Order u/s 263/143(3) of the Act on 07.08.2017.

Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10.11.2025, the Revenue preferred the present Appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently contended that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in holding thatthe assessment order dated 07.08.2017 passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of Act became void and non est merely on account of the quashing of the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act by the Hon’ble ITAT, without appreciating that the Department has already challenged the said ITAT order before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter has not attained finality. The Ld. DR relying on the Assessment Order dated 07.08.2017 passed u/s 263/143(3) of the Act, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per Contra, the Ld. AR submitted that once the Order u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed, the subsequent order passed u/s 143(3)

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is on record that the order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2017 has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on 03.01.2018 in ITA No.1896/KOL/2017 and connected matters. Before us passing the said order by the Tribunal, a consequential order was already passed by the Assessing Officer on 07.08.2017 pursuant to the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 21.03.2017. It is contention of the Revenue that the Ld. PCIT committed error in setting aside the order dated 07.08.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act without appreciating that the Department has already challenged the order of the Tribunal quashing the orders passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter has not contend final. The said contention of the Revenue cannot be acceptable. Once the Tribunal quashed the order u/s 263 of the Act, subsequent and consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has no legal sanctity and the same is ‘nullity’. Merely because the Department has preferred Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, challenging the Order of the Tribunal, which will not give life to

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.