PROSPEROUS BUILDCON P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3263/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 January 2022AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the order under section 263 of the Act was already quashed, the consequential order passed by the AO became infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT had previously quashed the PCIT's order under section 263 for the same assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether a consequential assessment order remains valid when the order directing it (under section 263) has been quashed by a higher authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Sood, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 25.01.2022Pronounced: 25.01.2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2006-07.

2.

Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeals:

“Ground No. 1: The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-7, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A) has erred in law and in the fact in passing the order dated 21st February 2018 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Ground No. 2:

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the condonation of delay in filing Appeal by the Appellant merely on arbitrary basis. There was an inadvertent delay of 82 days. The rejection of the same was made at back of appellant without giving proper reasonable opportunity. Ground No. 3:

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the decision passed by Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi wherein order passed u/s 263 of the Act, in case of appellant only has been quashed. Accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) pursuant to order u/s 263 is not sustainable and void ab initio. The Hon'ble ITAT has pronounced such order on 01.11.2017 which was provided to Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings, however he failed to consider the same. Ground No. 4:

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or omit any of the above grounds of appeal as the circumstances may warrant.”

3.

Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the present appeal is consequent out of the directions given by Ld. PCIT-7, New Delhi, u/s 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07. He submitted that consequent to the directions u/s 263 of PCIT, AO has passed the impugned order u/s 143(3)/263 vide order dated 21.02.2018. He submitted that against the order passed by PCIT u/s 263, assessee had carried the matter before the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2017 in had quashed the order passed by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. He placed on the record the copy of the aforesaid order. In such circumstances, he submitted that the present appeal be decided accordingly.

4.

Learned DR did not controvert the submissions made by Learned AR but however submitted that against the order passed by Hon’ble Tribunal, whereby Hon’ble ITAT has quashed the order of PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, Revenue has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is yet to be decided. He therefore, submitted that till the disposal of the matter by Hon’ble High Court, the disposal of present appeal be kept in abeyance.

5.

We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the present appeal is a consequential to the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. It is also a fact that the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2017 in has held that PCIT had no jurisdiction or power to invoke provision of section 263 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly it quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Since the order passed u/s 263 of the Act itself has been quashed, the present appeal arising out of the consequential order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act becomes infructuous. We accordingly dismiss the appeal being infractuous.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.01.2022, immediately after conclusion of the hearing of the matter in virtual mode.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →