D.C.I.T., CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAJNISH AGARWAL, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was already quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal, the consequential assessment order and the present appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) order which arose from an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal had previously quashed the Section 263 order, making the consequential assessment order void.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are infructuous when the underlying revisionary order has been previously quashed by the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SONJOY SARMA
Appearances by: Sh. Bharat Jain, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 24th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : November 29th, 2022 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2014-15 are directed against the common order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 18.02.2021 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act.
Registry has informed that the three appeals are time barred by 493 days. Condonation applications have been filed by the Revenue. Perusal of the same shows that the delay was on account of COVID-19 restrictions. We, therefore, in view of the judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 find that the limitation period in filing appeal between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for calculating the limitation period in filing appeal under this period. Since the period of limitation in this case falls during this period, the same deserves to be extended and we, therefore, condone the delay of 493 days and admit the Revenue’s appeals for adjudication.
I.T.A. Nos.: 500, 503 & 506/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Puja Agarwal Shri Rajnish Agarwal Shri Suresh Agarwal.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the instant bunch of appeals at the instance of the Revenue are against the order of ld. CIT(A) which was arising out of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. However, since the order u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.03.2016 for AY 2014-15 was quashed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 28.02.2020 in bunch of appeals in & Ors., the consequential assessment order dated 26.11.2018 stands quashed and therefore, the instant appeal at the instance of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed as infructuous.
On the other hand, ld. D/R failed to controvert the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The instant bunch of appeals for three different assessees filed by the Revenue are against the order of ld. CIT(A) which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. The revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act dated 16.03.2018 were challenged by all the three assessees before this Tribunal and vide consolidated order in ITA No. 1177/Kol/2018 & Ors. dated 28.02.2020, the order u/s 263 of the Act was quashed by this Tribunal, thereby restoring the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Under these given facts and circumstances, since the proceedings carried out by ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and subsequent proceedings have I.T.A. Nos.: 500, 503 & 506/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Puja Agarwal Shri Rajnish Agarwal Shri Suresh Agarwal. become infructuous, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I.T.A. Nos. 500, 503 & 506/Kol/2022 for AY 2014-15 are dismissed as infructuous as per terms indicated herein above. Kolkata, the 29th November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.11.2022 Bidhan (P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. 1. DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata. 2. Smt. Puja Agarwal, 3, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027.
3. Shri Rajnish Agarwal, B/4, 10th Floor, Satyam Tower, 3, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027.
4. Shri Suresh Agarwal, B/4, 10th Floor, Satyam Tower, 3, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027.
5. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata.
6. CIT- 7. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026