KEDIA TRADE & AGENCIES (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that no assessment order had been framed consequent to the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was rendered redundant. The assessee chose not to pursue the appeal in this situation.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263. The assessee contended that the assessment order, which should have been passed within one year of the Section 263 order, was never passed or served.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is maintainable when the consequential assessment order has not been passed within the prescribed time limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata - 2, [hereinafter the “ld. Pr. CIT”], dt. 10/06/2020, passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015- 16.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that as per Section 153(1) of the Act, an assessment order should be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 263 of the Act was passed. He pointed out that the assessment order should have been passed by 31/03/2021. According the ld. Counsel for the assessee, no such assessment order has been passed or ever served upon the assessee. therefore, on the basis of above information the assessee submitted that this appeal becomes redundant because no assessment has been framed in Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kedia Trade & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 2 consequence to the impugned order. The assessee does not want to pursue this appeal in view of the above situation.
However, with abundant caution, we observe that in case some assessment order is unearthed with effect that it was issued for service upon the assessee but could not be effected or an assessment order in pursuance to this order dt. 10/06/2020 sees the day of light which was passed by 31/03/2021, then the assessee will be at liberty to get the appeal revived.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn in above terms.
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 →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026