DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(4), MUMBAI vs. BRADMA LOGISTICS PARKS P. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1621/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2021AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that once the revision order under section 263 is set aside by the ITAT, the assessment order passed in pursuance of it ceases to exist. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had deleted these additions because the ITAT had previously quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions when the ITAT had already quashed the revision order under section 263, rendering the assessment order invalid.

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri C.T. Mathews, CIT DR
Hearing: 08.09.2021Pronounced: 15.09.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1621/Mum/2020
ITA No. 1623/Mum/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of the Revenue are arising out of orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-49, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-49, Mumbai/10178,10180/2018-19 vide dated 21.02.2020. The Assessments were framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(4) Mumbai (in short

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2009-10 for and 2010-11 and the grounds are also identical. Hence, we will take the facts from Assessment Year 2009-10 in and will decide the issue. The grounds for Assessment Year 2009-10 read as under:-

1.

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in view of setting aside of order under section 263 by Hon’ble ITAT, without appreciating the fact that department has filed appeal against the order of Hon’ble ITAT before Bombay High Court.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed from the order of CIT(A) that the Tribunals order for Assessment Year 2009-10 in & for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 2756/Mum/2018 vide order dated 05.07.2019, wherein the Tribunal has quashed the revision order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act and quashed the proceedings vide Para 8 in respect of addition made by AO on account of share capital.

4.

When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. DR he agreed that the Revenue’s appeal will not survive and CIT(A) appeal

“4.0 I have considered the facts of the case. It is found that Hon’ble ITAT has set aside the order of the Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the Act vide a combine order for Assessment Year 2009-10 in and 2010-11 in ITA No.2756/Mum/2018 dated 05.07.2019 read with section 153C of the Act dated 01.04.2015.

5.0 Since the order of the Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the Act did not survive, the order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the same, which is the subject matter of this appeal, also seized to exist and, in the given facts of the case, the same has to be treated as non est. Hence, since the impugned order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act did not survive, the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the said order stands deleted. As a consequence, the grounds raised by the assessee in respect of specific additions made vide the said order became infractuous and the same are not required to be adjudicated separately.”

Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that once, the Tribunal set aside the revision order passed by PCIT under section 263 of the Act, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act has no leg to stand. Therefore, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the assessment order passed under section

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →