DCIT,CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT LTD, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2654/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the foundational Section 263 order had already been quashed by a coordinate bench and this decision was affirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the consequential assessment order could not survive and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15, which allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order on the ground that the underlying Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the assessment, had been quashed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Jurisdictional High Court. The revenue contended that an SLP against the High Court's order was pending before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal by quashing the consequential assessment order, when the foundational Section 263 order had been quashed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Jurisdictional High Court, notwithstanding the revenue's claim of a pending SLP before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 05/05/2025Pronounced: 05/05/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 30.05.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065254140(1), for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. Shri P.N.Barwal, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, we found that the appeal of the revenue is filed belatedly by 148 days. In this regard, the revenue has filed an application dated 26.12.2024 stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, are plausible. Accordingly, 148 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.

4.

It was submitted by the ld CIT-DR that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the order u/s.263 of the Act, which was a foundation for the assessment order passed in the impugned appeal, has been quashed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal quashing the order u/s.263 of the Act, was under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as evidenced by ground No.1 of revenue’s appeal which reads as follows:-

1.

1.

1. Whether. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that 'once the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is quashed, the consequential order passed in pursuance of order u/s 263 of the Act cannot be survived and the base order [i.e., 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act] which was subjected to revision gets again the life' in spite of the fact that SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is being filed by the Revenue against the Order of Hon'ble High Court confirming the Order ITAT quashing the Order u/s 263 of the Act.

5. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the issue on merits.

1.

6. We have considered the submissions of the ld. CIT-DR. A perusal of the grounds filed by the revenue clearly shows that even the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has upheld the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal quashing the order u/s.263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal specifically claim that an SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is a fact that the order u/s.263 of the Act is no more existing as the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has already quashed the same passed in

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →