DCIT CIRCLE 8(2) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL GLASS LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT GLASS LTD), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1451/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 September 2022AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the order passed under Section 263 was set aside, the subsequent assessment order based on it could not survive. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 was null and void because a previous Tribunal order had set aside the Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act is valid when the order passed under Section 263 is subsequently set aside.

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, C BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 15.12.2021, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 31.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with Section 263

Assessment Year: 2009-10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that for the Assessment Year 2009-10 the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide assessment order, dated 28.05.2013. Vide order dated 23.03.2016, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 7, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCIT’] set aside the aforesaid assessment order in exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act.

3.

Thereafter, vide assessment order dated 31.12.2016 assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the pendency of the appeal before CIT(A), the Tribunal vide order, dated 14.12.2018 passed in set aside the order passed by PCIT under Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee holding that since the Tribunal has set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the assessment framed vide order, dated 31.12.2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act becomes null and void.

4.

Being aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before us since the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal passed in and is in appeal against the said order before the Hon’ble High Court.

1.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 5. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Since the order, dated 23.03.2016, passed under Section 263 of the Act has been set aside, the consequent assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 01.09.2022.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →