CIT vs. NAVYUG SEWING MACHINE CO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 74 / 2011HC Delhi20 January 20111 pages
For Petitioner: A. MARATHA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had rightly set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the CIT's order under Section 263 was itself set aside, the basis for the Assessing Officer's order was extinguished. Therefore, the AO's order was correctly set aside by the ITAT. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed on the grounds that no substantial question of law was involved.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) passed orders based on directions issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exercising revisionary jurisdiction. The assessee challenged the CIT's order under Section 263 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the CIT's order. Consequently, the AO's order, which was based on the CIT's directions, was also set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court finds a question of law arising from the ITAT's order allowing the assessee's appeal and setting aside the CIT's order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which was upheld by the High Court, implies that the assessee successfully argued that the CIT's order under Section 263 was erroneous, leading to the setting aside of the AO's consequential order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court. The revenue was represented by counsel, but their arguments are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 20.01.2011 . Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for the Revenue/appellant. None for the respondent. . +ITA No.74/2011 . The Assessing Officer passed the orders on the basis of directions given by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by passing the order in revisionary jurisdiction. However, in appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, the appeal was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said order was set aside. Since the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act itself was set aside, the very basis for passing the order by the Assessing Officer is finished. Therefore, that order was rightly set aside by the ITAT. We find no question of law arises in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. JANUARY 20, 2011 pmc . . #8

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →