SHRI DEEPAK LAKHMICHAND AHUJA,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1180/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 June 2019AY 2012-134 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition made in the consequential assessment was deleted by the CIT(A) and the revenue did not appeal, the assessee's grievance was resolved. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the PCIT's order under Section 263 had become academic.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) set aside the original assessment order, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Assessing Officer (AO) then made an addition of Rs. 2 lakhs in the consequential assessment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted this addition, and the revenue did not appeal further.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified, and if the subsequent deletion of additions by the CIT(A) rendered the assessee's appeal academic.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Indani
For Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Hearing: 07.06.2019Pronounced: 11.06.2019

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.

2.

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?

3.

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.”

3.

All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together.

4.

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.

5.

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

6.

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.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →