JAGANNATH TUKARAM MRAGAJALE,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1315/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 August 2019AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a previous order for the same assessment year had already cancelled the Section 263 revision order. Consequently, the assessment order based on it was also invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order upholding the disallowance of unpaid service tax. This order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of unpaid service tax under Section 43B was valid when the underlying revision order under Section 263 was already quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sandbhor
For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Hearing: 19.07.2019Pronounced: 01.08.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad, dated 02.03.2017 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the AO in respect of disallowance of Rs.28,71,742 under section 43B of the Act on account of unpaid service tax.

ITA No.1315/PUN/2017 2 Shri Jagannath Tukaram Mragajale

3.

The present appeal is filed against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.

4.

The present appeal has been filed after delay of 4 days. In view of facts and circumstances, the same is condoned.

5.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that the Tribunal in ITA No.693/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009- 10, vide order dated 02.11.2018 had canceled the order passed under section 263 of the Act holding that exercise of jurisdiction was wrongly invoked by the Commissioner.

6.

Once the legs on which the assessment has been completed do not stand, consequent order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act do not stand. Accordingly, there is no merit in the aforesaid addition made in the hands of assessee. Thus, the issue is decided in favour of assessee as indicated above. The ground of appeal on merits thus, would become academic.

7.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 1st day of August, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 1st August, 2019. GCVSR

ITA No.1315/PUN/2017 3 Shri Jagannath Tukaram Mragajale

आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad; 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Aurangabad; ववबागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “फी” / DR 5. ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे/ ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →