DY CIT CC 1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SURENDRA HIRANANDANI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the revisionary proceedings and the consequent revisionary order under Section 263. Therefore, the present appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for multiple assessment years. The assessee's counsel argued that the revisionary orders under Section 263, which led to these appeals, had already been quashed by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeals are infructuous because the underlying revisionary orders have been quashed by a higher tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The above titled appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the orders even dated 14.11.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as
All these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the appeals of the assessee which in turn arise out of the assessment framed as by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 153A read with section 263 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee at the outset submitted that the revisionary order passed under section 263 by PCIT in all these years have been quashed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in to 3232/M/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2014-15 vide order dated 14.02.2018. The Ld. Counsel, therefore ,submitted that the present appeals filed by the Revenue are rendered infructuous in view of the revisionary proceedings being quashed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal as stated above. The ld AR therefore requested the bench to dismiss all these appeals as infructuous.
The Ld. D.R. fairly conceded to the arguments of the Ld. A.R. to the effect that the revisionary orders passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act have been quashed and left the decision to the wisdom of the Bench.
After perusing the co-ordinate bench decision passed in & ors. dated 14.02.2018, we find that the revisionary proceedings and the consequent revisionary order under section 263 have been quashed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals are rendered infructuous and are accordingly dismissed.
In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.08.2021.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026