GULAB MAHARU BADGUJAR (HUF),THANE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 768/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 June 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings exercised by the CIT under Section 263 were incorrect. Consequently, the consequential order passed by the AO did not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2011-12 involved identical facts and issues. The CIT had revised the AO's assessment order under Section 263, which was subsequently challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the revisionary order passed by the CIT under Section 263 and its impact on the consequential assessment order passed by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Hearing: 17.06.2019Pronounced: 27.06.2019

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.”

4.

Similar ground has been raised by the assessee in ITA

No.768/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12.

5.

First we shall take up appeal in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for A.Y.

2006-07.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.765/PUN/2017 for

A.Y. 2006-07 is allowed.

9.

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.

10.

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 :

1.

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.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →