DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PRAVARDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 727/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 November 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that since the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263 was invalid. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) held that the AO's order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263 did not survive because the Tribunal had previously quashed the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263 survives when the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, which formed the basis for it, has been quashed by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 10(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 30/09/2019Pronounced: 15/11/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.727/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Pravardhan Seeds Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle-16(2), 2nd Floor, ‘B’ 8-2-277/45, Block, IT Towers, A.C. Road No.3, UBI Colony, Guards, Masab Tank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad-500033. PAN: AAFCP 0118 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri V. Siva Kumar, AR Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 30/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 15/11/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No.4/10164/17-18/DCIT, Cir- 16(2)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/2018-19, dated 15/02/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised two grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that “the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the order of the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s

263 of the Act does not survive as the Tribunal had quashed the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT on perusal of the Assessment Order in the case of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 had observed that an amount of Rs. 4,19,34,572/- has been erroneously allowed as agricultural income by the Ld. AO which is exempt from the Act U/s. 10(1) of the Act because the Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that the assessee company had departed from the basic agricultural operations and had indulged in production of parent seeds. Therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT set-aside the order of the Ld. AO and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act on 23/10/2017 by rejecting the entire income of Rs. 4,19,34,572/- as agricultural income. It was further submitted that on appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) set-aside the order of the Ld. AO passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 23/10/2017 and restored the order of the Ld. AO dated 30/3/2015 because the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No. 667/Hyd/2017, dated 30/1/2019 had set-aside the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed U/s. 263 of the Act. It was therefore argued the appeal of the Revenue does not survive. The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submissions of the Ld. AR.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record, and we find merit in the submissions of the ld. AR.

From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the Tribunal had quashed the order of the Pr. CIT passed U/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act does not survive. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT (A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee and restored the order of the ld. AO dated 30/3/2015. In this situation, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence the appeal of the Revenue does not survive.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 15th November, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 15th November, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) M/s. Pravardhan Seeds Private Limited, 8-2-277/45, Road No.3, UBI Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500033. 2) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Block, IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →