SRI GAUTAM SETT,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(2),, HOOGHLY

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the original return of income for AY 2013-14 on 23.07.2013 showing total income of ₹2,82,515/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act upon receiving specific information from the I & CI Wing, Kolkata and the assessee requested to accept his original return filed dated 23.07.2013 in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO'), during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee had sold a piece of ITA No(s). 2212/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2013-14 land and had received an amount of ₹80,00,000/- as sale value and the value for the purpose of stamp duty of which was ₹4,84,60,044/- and the provisions of section 50C of the Act were applicable. The assessee was asked to explain the details of long-term capital loss of ₹1,64,86,480/- as disclosed in his return of income. Since the reply of the assessee was not tenable, the Ld. AO added the difference amount of ₹4,04,60,044/- to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. PCIT perused the assessment record and observed that the assessee had made a high value property transaction for the sale of land. Hence the Ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 04.03.2020, which was complied with by the assessee and after taking into consideration the written submission, he set aside the order of the Ld. AO vide order u/s 263 of the Act dated 20.03.2020 and directed the Ld. AO to pass a fresh assessment order. Accordingly, the Ld. AO finalised the assessment proceedings by making addition of ₹4,84,60,044/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, vide order dated 19.08.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 225 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) without taking up the case on merits even as the case records suggested that the Hon'ble ITAT had granted relief to the assessee by quashing the very revisionary order of the Ld. PCIT which formed the foundation of the impugned assessment order.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted at the outset that the Ld. PCIT had revised the assessment order and had issued certain directions vide Assessment Year(s) 2013-14 order u/s 263 of the Act dated 20.03.2020. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had quashed the order u/s 263 of the Act vide their order in I.T.A. No. 367/Kol/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 dated 31.05.2023. It was stated that the consequential order passed by the Ld. AO has no legs to stand and deserves to be quashed. The Ld. DR could not rebut this contention of the Ld. AR.

We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. Since the revision order u/s 263 of the Act dated 20.03.2020 on the basis of which the revised assessment was made has itself been quashed by the Tribunal on 31.05.2023, the consequential reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 23.09.2021 passed in order to give effect to the findings/directions vide the order u/s 263 of the Act is also quashed as it has no legs to stand and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th April, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 27.04.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order