THE MAHANAGAR CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.,CUTTACK vs. PR.CIT-1, , BHUBANESWAR

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,कटकन्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.104/CTK/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) The Mahanagar Credit Co- Vs Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar operative Society Limited, At: Pilgrim Road, College Square Cuttack-753003 PAN No. : AABAM 0785 E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Jeetendra Kumar, CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 06/10/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. PCIT, Bhubaneswar-1, in appeal No.PCIT, Bhubaneswar-1/Revision- 263/100000277481/2021, dated 12/01/2022 for the assessment year 2012- 2013. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, ld. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Jeetendra Kumar, ld. CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 388 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay. Ld. Sr. DR also did not object to condone the same. Accordingly, considering the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee in regard to condonation of delay which are

2 ITA No.104/CTK/2023 not found to be false, we condone the delay of 388 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessment order which is the subject matter of the order u/s.263 of the Act was a draft assessment order. The revenue was asked to submit their response to the same and the revenue submitted that mentioning the draft assessment order is a typographical error and the revenue has also provided the DIN in respect of the said assessment order. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that the consequential assessment order was also passed by the AO on 28.01.2023 and the said assessment order was the subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has also set aside the assessment back to the file of ld. AO for readjudication. 5. A perusal of the assessment order dated 28.01.2023, which is a consequential assessment order, shows that the issues raised by the ld. AR on merits in regard to the issues which relate to the year ending 31st March, 2015, admittedly, has not been considered by the AO in his assessment order passed. It is also noticed that the consequential assessment order is an ex-parte order for which the ld. CIT(A) has restored the issues to the file of the ld. AO. The proceedings are now pending before the ld. AO. 6. The ld. AR has submitted that the issues raised in para 4, 5 & 5(a) are the issues relating to the assessment year 2015-2016, whereas the issue in para 3 of the order u/s.263 of the Act is in relation to the assessment year 2012-2013. In regard to the issues raised by the ld. Pr.CIT in para 3 of

3 ITA No.104/CTK/2023 the order, it was submitted by the ld. AR that this was an issue which could be rectified u/s.154 of the Act and the powers u/s.263 of the Act are not required to be invoked. It was the prayer that the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar be quashed. 7. In reply, ld. CIT-DR submitted that in the consequential order also passed by the ld. AO the issues have already been considered and such issues which do not relate to the assessment year 2012-2013 has not been brought into the assessment. It was the submission that the consequential assessment order is a second round of assessment itself. It was the prayer that the order passed u/s.263 of the Act be upheld. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the consequential order to the order passed u/s.263 of the Act has already been passed and is already in the second round of litigation. A perusal of the consequential order also clearly shows that the AO has considered the impugned submission before us by the ld. AR and the issues relating to the assessment year 2015-2016 have not been considered in the assessment. This being so and also considering the fact that there an ex-parte consequential assessment order which has been passed and now the matter is pending before the AO, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Act. 9. The issues raised in para 3 of the order passed under Section 263 of the Act could have been rectified under Section 154 of the Act, does not stand to reason insofar as if the ld. Pr.CIT has pointed the said error in the

4 ITA No.104/CTK/2023 order passed u/s.263 of the Act and just because there is a provision u/s.154 of the Act it does not mean that the ld. Pr.CIT is precluded from invoking his power under Section 263 of the Act. This being so, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 06/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रनतललपपअग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 5. ववभागीयप्रतततनधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपतप्रतत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack