M/S SHUBHAM GINNING PRESSING PVT. LTD.,JASDAN vs. THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-II, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 622/RJT/2014Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 March 2018AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had redressed the assessee's grievances by deleting the additions made in the revised assessment order, the appeal before the Tribunal had become redundant and academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order for AY 2010-11 was set aside by the CIT under Section 263 for inadequate examination of unsecured loans and share capital. The AO then passed a fresh assessment order, making some additions. Subsequently, the CIT(A) deleted these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in exercising revisional powers under Section 263, and whether the subsequent assessment order was justified after the CIT(A) deleted the additions.

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, RAJKOT

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, AR
Hearing: 07/12/2017

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against order of ld.CIT-II, Rajkot dated 1.9.2014 passed under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, its grievance revolves around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Act and setting aside assessment order for framing fresh assessment order after examining all issues.

3.

It is pertinent to note that the assessment order under section 143(3) was passed in the case of assessee for the asstt.year 2010-11 on 25.3.2013.

ITA No.622/Rjt/2014

Thereafter, the ld.CIT took cognizance under section 263 and observed that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny after approval of CCIT for verifying fresh “unsecured loan” and “share capital” received in this year. These issues have not been examined by the AO thoroughly, therefore, he issued a detailed show cause notice running in to 5 pages on 15.10.2013. After hearing the assessee, the ld.Commissioner has set aside original assessment order and directed the AO to frame fresh assessment order after considering all these issues. The ld.AO has passed an assessment order on 3.11.2015 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. He has examined issues of share capital as well as other issues. Total income has been determined at Rs.12,22,010/- as against returned income of Rs.1,22,010/-. The ld.CIT directed the AO to examine unsecured loan of Rs.98,83,700/- received from traders. It appears that both these issues have been examined by the AO and he partly accepted the stand of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO vide order dated 1.9.2017. Thus all grievances of the assessee have been redressed by the ld.CIT(A).

4.

Considering the above developments, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed because in pursuance of the impugned order passed under section 263 the AO has framed assessment. He has not made much additions as discussed in 263-order as well as in the show cause notice. Thereafter, grievance of the assessee has been redressed by the ld.CIT(A). Technically, this appeal is redundant and only an academic exercise would be there to adjudicate it. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to go through

ITA No.622/Rjt/2014

various contentions of the assessee and confirm the order passed by the ld.Commissioner. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 1st March, 2018 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 01/03/2018

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →