Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which allowed the assessee's appeal. This allowance was a consequence of the Bombay High Court quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and Section 144B based on a notice under Section 148.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the High Court had already quashed the reassessment proceedings and the notice under Section 148, the assessment order had become non-existent. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue's appeal is infructuous when the underlying reassessment proceedings and notices have been quashed by the High Court?
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 148A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067363586(1), dated 06.08.2024 passed against the assessment order by the NFAC, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15.
Mayur Rajas Doshi, AY – 2014-15 2. In this appeal the sole issue is in respect of allowing the first appeal of the assessee consequent to quashing of the order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s.148 by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in assessee’s own case in the writ petition filed by the assessee against the said order and notice. In this respect, we have perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he took note of the submissions made by the assessee that a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay challenging the reopening of the assessment itself in writ petition No. WPL/1142/2024. Hon'ble Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and quashed the order u/s.148A(d) and notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration, i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15. These facts are noted by ld. CIT(A) in para-6 and has also reproduced the order of the Hon'ble Court. Consequent to this order by Hon'ble High Court, he held that the grounds raised by the assessee do not require any separate adjudication since the assessment order has become non existing and thus treated the appeal of the assessee as allowed for statistical purposes. Relevant observations and findings in this respect are extracted below:
“7. In view of the above facts, I find that the assessment order passed consequent to the order u/s 148A(d) & notice issued u/s 148 will not survive since the order u/s 148A(d) & consequential notice issued u/s 148 for AY 2014-15 has been squashed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the appellant's own case as discussed above. Therefore the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant do not require any separate adjudication since the assessment order has become non- existing.
8. In the result, the appeal treated as allowed statistical purpose.”
3. We find that the facts as stated above are undisputed and uncontroverted as nothing contrary has been brought on record by the Revenue to this effect. Since the notice issued u/s.148 itself has been quashed which forms the very basis of the re-assessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order passed u/s.147, the present Mayur Rajas Doshi, AY – 2014-15 appeal contesting on the grounds raised arising out of the said assessment order is rendered infructuous. We do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous in the light of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay stated above.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.