M/S. BEE PEE TEXTILES (PARTNER - SHRI ASHOK LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment order, passed as a consequence of a quashed revision order, was infructuous and therefore cancelled. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s 263. The assessee's counsel pointed out that a co-ordinate bench had already quashed the revision order, which led to the impugned assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order passed pursuant to a revision order that has been quashed is valid. The consequence of a quashed revision order on the subsequent assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI
Appearances: Mukesh Advani for the appellant Chetan M. Kacha for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : August 24, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : August 24, 2022
O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:
By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged the correctness of the order dated 21st April 2022, passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of the processing of income tax returns u/s. 144 r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2014-15.
When this appeal came up for hearing learned counsel for the assessee fairly pointed out that the revision order passed by the learned Commissioner, as a consequence of which impugned assessment order was passed, has already been quashed by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 15.11.2021. The impugned assessment order ought to have been Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 2 therefore, quashed. The learned CIT(A), however, has noted this fact but dismissed the appeal as infructuous, whereas, according to the learned counsel, he ought to have allowed the appeal, and ought to have held that assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. 263 was infructuous.
Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute the submissions of the assessee.
In view of the above discussions, we uphold the plea of the assessee, we hold that the impugned assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. 263 is infructuous and stand cancelled as such, and, we thus allow the appeal of the assessee. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 24th day 5. of August 2022.
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 →- Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works vs. Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Rabindranath Behera vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026