JOHNSON CONROLS-HITACHI CONDITIONING INDIA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 943/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)3 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 assessee's Authorised Representative submitted that a consequential assessment order had already been passed, wherein the deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal, which was not objected to by the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the appeal as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax's order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17. The PCIT's order had set aside a reassessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the allowability of a deduction of Rs.1,52,09,430/- claimed under Section 35(2AB).

What were the issues?

Challenge to PCIT's order under Section 263 directing verification of deduction under Section 35(2AB), rendered infructuous by subsequent acceptance of deduction by AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 35(2AB)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR

Hearing: 03/06/2025Pronounced: 04/06/2025

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-1 [hereinafter referred to as "PCIT"], under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], dated 22.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2016-17, whereby the reassessment order dated 28.02.2022 passed under 2 section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the allowability of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of development cost of Rs.1,52,09,430/-.

2.

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that pursuant to the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, a consequential assessment order has already been passed by the Assessing Officer. A copy of the said order was placed on record, from which it is evident that no adverse view has been taken by the Assessing Officer and the deduction claimed by the assessee has been duly accepted upon verification. In light of the same, the learned AR submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the present appeal and seeks permission to withdraw the same.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the prayer made by the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal.

4.

We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. Since the consequential assessment order has already been passed in compliance with the directions contained in the order under section 263 and no disallowance or adverse inference has been drawn by the Assessing Officer, the grievance sought to be raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands rendered

3 infructuous. Accordingly, the request of the assessee to withdraw the appeal is allowed.

5.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the Court on 4th June, 2025 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →