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

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.

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.

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.

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.