DCIT, CC - 1(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA L . JAIN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3705/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2021AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year had already been disposed of by the Tribunal, which had quashed the assessment for want of jurisdiction. The revenue's appeal was therefore rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13, and the assessee filed cross-objections. The assessment was originally framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is infructuous due to a prior Tribunal order quashing the assessment for want of jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. Shah – Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Sharma – Ld. CIT DR, Shri Rajesh C. Shah – Ld. AR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.3705/Mum/2018
C.O. No.16/Mum/2020

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

O R D E R Mahavir Singh (Vice President) 1. The revenue contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 27/03/2018 on certain grounds of appeal

. The assessee has filed cross-objections against the same. The assessment for the year was framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 31/03/2016.

2. During hearing, it transpires that the assessee’s appeal for the same year has already been disposed-off by the Tribunal vide order dated 26/07/2010 which is common order for AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13. The copy of the same is on record. It could be seen that the bench, vide para-12 of the order, has already quashed the assessment framed by Ld. AO for AY 2012-13 for want of jurisdiction. The Ld. DR could not controvert the fact that the revenue’s appeal has become infructuous.

3. In view of the forgoing the appeal as well as cross-objection stands dismissed as infructuous.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →