Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
These two appeals filed by the assessee are emanating out of the 1. consolidated order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) – 12, Pune dated 11.01.2017 for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2011-12.
Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that though the appeals filed by the assessee are for two different assessment years but the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts involved and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeal also and thus both the appeals can be heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, we, for the sake of
ITA Nos.765 & 768/PUN/2017
convenience, proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order
but however, proceed with narrating the facts in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for
assessment year 2006-07.
The sole ground raised by the assessee in A.Y. 765/PUN/2017 for
A.Y. 2006-07 reads as under :
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Lower Authorities have erred in making an addition of Rs.19,00,000/- by rejecting appellant’s contention and also by rejecting the documentary evidences on record, the addition being arbitrary and based on surmises and guesswork, same is bad in law and entire addition needs to be deleted.”
Similar ground has been raised by the assessee in ITA
No.768/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12.
First we shall take up appeal in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for A.Y.
2006-07.
Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that initially order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act was passed by AO on 14.02.2014. Thereafter Ld.CIT called
for the assessment records and after examination of assessment records,
he came to the conclusion that the assessment order passed by AO was
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He accordingly vide
order dated 19.03.2015 passed u/s 263 of the Act, set aside the order of
AO and directed him to reframe the assessment as per the directions
contained therein. Against the order passed by Ld.CIT u/s 263 of the Act
wherein he had set aside the order of AO, assessee had carried the matter
before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the
Tribunal vide order dated 03.05.2019 in ITA No.798 & 799/PUN/2015
held that revisionary proceedings exercised by Ld.CIT to be not correct and
accordingly set aside the order of Ld.CIT. He placed on record the copy of
ITA Nos.765 & 768/PUN/2017
the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and pointed to the relevant findings of
the Tribunal. In such a situation, he submitted that the consequential
order passed by the AO does not survive. He therefore submitted that
impugned consequential order be set aside as it does not survive. Ld. D.R.
on the other hand did not controvert the submissions made by Ld.A.R. but
however supported the order of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case Ld.CIT vide order
dt.19.03.2015 passed u/s 263 of the Act had set aside the order passed by
AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Against the order passed by Ld.CIT
passed u/s 263 of the Act for A.Ys 2006-07 and 2011-12, assessee had
carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order
dt.03.05.2019 had held the revisionary proceedings exercised by Ld.CIT to
be not correct and therefore had set aside the order passed by CIT u/s 263
of the Act for both the years. In such a situation, when the original order of
Ld.CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act has been set aside, the consequential
order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act does not survive.
Thus, the ground of the assessee in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2006-
07 is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for
A.Y. 2006-07 is allowed.
Now, we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.768/PUN/2017 for A.Y.
2011-12.
9.1. As far as the ground raised in appeal in ITA No.768/PUN/2017 for
A.Y. 2011-12 is concerned, in view of the submission of both the parties
ITA Nos.765 & 768/PUN/2017
that the facts of the case in the year being identical to the facts and issue of
the case in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2006-07, we therefore for the reasons stated herein while disposing of the appeal in ITA
No.765/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2006-07 and for similar reasons hold that the
consequential order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act does
not survive. Thus, the ground of assessee is in ITA No.768/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 is allowed.
To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced on 27th day of June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 27th June, 2019. Yamini
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-1 – Kolhapur. 4. Pr. CIT – Kolhapur. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” / DR, ITAT, “A” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER
// True Copy //
व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.