LONGRANGE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -8, MUMBAI, MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the AO had already passed a re-assessment order giving effect to the PCIT's order. Therefore, the appeal challenging the PCIT's order was rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263. The Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently passed a re-assessment order giving effect to the PCIT's order.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal against a PCIT's order under section 263 becomes infructuous once the AO has passed a re-assessment order giving effect to it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-08, Mumbai dated 22.02.2021 for assessment year 2017-18 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
At the outset, the Ld. CIT-DR brought to our notice that this is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.02.2021; and the AO has already given effect to the order of the Ld. PCIT by passing the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2022 and has placed before us the copy of re-assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. Therefore, according to the Ld. CIT-DR, the appeal of the assessee challenging the action of Ld. PCIT has become infructuous in 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Longrange Commodities Pvt. Ltd. the light of the aforesaid facts. We note that despite notice none- appeared on behalf of the assessee on 11.08.2022 as well as 02.11.2022. Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal ex- parte qua assessee and in the light of the subsequent development that the AO has already given effect to the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. Therefore, without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee which are left open, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026