ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. GOURI SHANKAR JAIN (HUF), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1438/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 April 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was a consequence of an order passed u/s. 263 which was quashed by a coordinate bench. The Ld. CIT(A) had followed judicial discipline in allowing the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The assessee's AR argued that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the order passed u/s. 263 had been quashed by a coordinate bench.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable when the foundational order u/s. 263 has been quashed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR
Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064326676(1) dated 24.04.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2014-15.

2.

Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the revenue’s appeal is not maintainable in so far as the order passed u/s. 263 itself had been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sankar Jain (HUF), AY 2014-15 1662/Kol/2019 dated 25.11.2020. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has also recognized that the order u/s. 263 had been quashed and had consequently deleted the addition as made in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in the present case clearly show that the assessment order which is the subject matter of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is the consequences of an order passed u/s. 263 by the Ld. Pr. CIT-II on 15.03.2019. The said order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal in and the coordinate bench of this Tribunal by an order dated 25.11.2020 has quashed the order passed u/s.

263.

As the very foundation of the assessment order stands quashed and as it is also noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed judicial discipline and has also taken into consideration the fact that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has quashed the revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act when he has allowed the appeal of the assessee and also as the revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings of the ld. CIT(A) the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stands upheld.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →