JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT.LTD, RAIGAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1100/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had appealed the ITAT's order to the High Court and requested the current appeal be kept in abeyance. The assessee argued the appeal should be dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal treated the appeal as infructuous but granted liberty to the Revenue to restore it if they succeeded before the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which had allowed the assessee's appeal against an order passed by the AO. The CIT(A) had noted that a previous ITAT order had set aside the order passed under Section 263, rendering the AO's consequential order invalid.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on a prior ITAT order setting aside a Section 263 revision, should be dismissed as infructuous due to pending High Court proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia
For Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 15-04-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08.

2.

At the outset, we note that the present appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the action of CIT(A) in allowing assessee’s appeal which was filed against the order of AO passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.

3.

The CIT(A) in his order at Para No. 5 observed that the Pune Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT-2, Thane u/s. 263 of the Act and held consequential order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has no legs to stand. The ld. DR, Shri Shivraj B. Morey submits that the appellant-revenue filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay against the order of ITAT and prayed to keep this appeal in abeyance till date the disposal of the same by the Hon’be High Court. The ld. AR, Shri M.P. Lohia submits that when the ITAT quashed the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act and the consequential order therein does not stand and this appeal should be dismissed as infructuous. The ld. DR prayed that atleast liberty may be given to the Revenue to restore this appeal in case Revenue’s succeeds before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we treat this appeal as infructuous but, however, liberty granted to the appellant-revenue to make an application in case of favourable orders from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous.

4.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →