PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OP. PURCHASE AND SALES UNION LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1107/2018HC GujaratGJHC24052184201810 September 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal. The Court noted that the issue arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to a revisional order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had set aside the revisional order of the Commissioner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer would not survive. The High Court was informed that the Revenue's Tax Appeal No. 967 of 2017, against the Tribunal's order reversing the revisional order of the Commissioner, had already been dismissed by the High Court on December 11, 2017. Given this prior dismissal, the present Tax Appeal was also dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2) is in appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad dated April 9, 2017. The ITAT had set aside a revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the ITAT held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) pursuant to the CIT's revisional direction had become non-est (void). The Revenue's appeal before the High Court challenges this finding of the ITAT. The High Court notes that a previous Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order setting aside the CIT's revisional order was dismissed by the High Court on December 11, 2017.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the issue involved in the case on merits and holding that the assessment order framed pursuant to the direction of the CIT (A) had become non-est? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The ITAT's decision, which is under challenge, was that the assessment order passed by the AO pursuant to the CIT's revisional order had become non-est after the revisional order itself was set aside. The High Court's decision hinges on the prior dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order on the revisional aspect. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contends that the ITAT erred in law and fact by not adjudicating the issue on merits and by holding the consequential assessment order as non-est. The Revenue is essentially challenging the ITAT's reasoning that the assessment order loses its validity if the revisional order directing it is set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/1107/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 1107 of 2018 =========================================================== == PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OP. PURCHASE AND SALES UNION LTD. ============================================================= Appearance : Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 10th September 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“Tribunal” for short] dated 9th April 2017, raising the following question for our consideration : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the issue involved in the case on merits and holding that assessment order framed pursuant to direction of the CIT [A] had become non-est?” The issue arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Page 1 of 2

Officer pursuant to revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such revisional order was set-aside by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, in the present case, the Tribunal held that the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer would not survive.

We are informed that against the order of the Tribunal reversing the revisional order of the Commissioner, Revenue’s Tax Appeal No. 967 of 2017 came to be dismissed by this Court on 11th December 2017. That being the position, this Tax Appeal is dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →