Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Aurangabad dated 14.03.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-
Assessee is an individual who electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.13,15,284/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.20.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.14,41,217/-. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT on examining
ITA No.1180/PUN/2017
the assessment records noted that during the scrutiny proceedings, the
AO has failed to call for the details noted in the order passed u/s 263 of
the Act and accordingly, the assessment order passed by the AO was
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He accordingly set
aside the order of AO and gave the directions to call for the requisite
details, examine it afresh and pass orders. Aggrieved by the order of
Ld. PCIT vide order dated 14.03.2017, assessee is now in appeal before
us and has raised the following grounds :
“1. Appellant has given para wise reply to the notice U/s 263. 2. Principal Commissioner erred to give the findings that how the assessment order is erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of the revenue?
In the appellant's case the AO has passed the order by making all the inquiries & verification which a reasonable & prudent officer shall have carried out in such cases. 4. The Notice U/s 263 was issued on 02.03.2017, received on 03.03.2017 & called the reply on 07.03.2017 & order passed on 14.03.2017. 04.03.2017 & 05.03.2017 was weekly off. Practically commissioner has not given sufficient time to the appellant. Is it treated as a judicial order? Having been aggrieved with order appeal is filed before honourable ITAT seeing relief to quash the order U/S 263. 5. In Narayan Tatu Rane V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai ITAT, tribunal has noticed that the Ld. Pro CIT can revise the order only if it is shown by findings with reasons that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. For that in the facts & Circumstances of the case, the order U/s 263 is merely change in opinion. The order U/s 143(3) passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer does not in any way represent erroneous order. The action of Ld. CIT was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for & bad in Law. 7. You are requested to quash the Principal Commissioner’s Order under 263 and grant the relief. 8. Appellant would like to be heard in person.”
All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together.
Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that consequent to the order passed
u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT, AO passed consequential order u/s
ITA No.1180/PUN/2017
143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act by vide order dt.29.12.2017 and made
addition of Rs.2 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried
the matter before Ld.CIT who vide order dated 09.07.2018 (in appeal
No.ABD/CIT(A)-1/262/2017-18 dt.20.01.2019) deleted the addition of
Rs. 2 lakhs made by the AO. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue
has not preferred any appeal before ITAT. Ld.A.R. therefore submitted
that the addition made in the consequential order passed under
Sec.143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act has been deleted by Ld.CIT(A) and has
attained finality. He submitted that there remains no grievance of the
assessee and therefore the present appeal filed by the assessee can be
considered to be academic and thus it can be decided accordingly. Ld.
D.R. did not controvert the submissions made by Ld.A.R.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. In the present case, we find that originally assessment order
was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT passed
order u/s 263 of the Act wherein Ld. PCIT directed the AO to call for the
details mentioned in the order, examine it afresh and pass orders.
Consequently, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act
wherein addition of Rs.2 lakhs was made by the AO. When the matter
was carried by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A), Ld.CIT(A) vide order
dt.09.07.2018 has deleted the addition and against the order of
Ld.CIT(A), no appeal has been filed by the Revenue meaning thereby
that the issue for which revisionary proceedings were initiated had been
decided in assessee’s favour. In such circumstances, there is no
grievance of the assessee and therefore we find that the present appeal
of the assessee against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act has been
rendered academic and thus the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
ITA No.1180/PUN/2017
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 11th day of June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 11th 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. The PCT-1, Pune. 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” / DR, ITAT, “B” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER
// True Copy //
व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.