CIT 16 (2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KISHORE AJITSHI BHATIA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3707/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2020AY 2012-133 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 upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that if the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 is quashed, the consequential assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 would not survive.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held this order to be null and void because the Section 263 order itself was quashed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a consequential assessment order survives if the revisional order invoking it is quashed. The validity of an assessment order passed pursuant to a quashed revisional order.

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, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Jash Kapasi-Ld.AR
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap -Ld.CIT-DR

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Income Tax Officer-16(2)-5 Shri Kishore Ajitshi Bhatia Room No.440, 4th Floor बनाम/ 1072, 73A, A-Wing Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Clover Regency, Ramji Ashar Lane Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 077. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABPB-8092-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Jash Kapasi-Ld.AR Revenue by : Shri Sunil Umap -Ld.CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 06/10/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/10/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-5/ITO-16(2)(5)/IT-244/17-18 dated 08/03/2019 on following grounds of appeal: - 2 Shri Kishore Ajitshi Bhatia Assessment Year :2012-13

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that once the order u/s. 263 of the Act is quashed, the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 passed in pursuance of the same would not survive and needs to be treated as null and void without adjudicating the case on merits.

2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

The perusal of order under challenge would show that Ld. CIT(A) has held the order passed by Ld. AO on 11/12/2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act as null and void in view of the fact that order u/s 263 do not survive.

2.

It is admitted position before us that the assessee was subjected to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 vide order dated 30/03/2017. Pursuant to the same, an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 11/12/2017. The assessee while challenging the validity of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 before this Tribunal, challenged the consequential assessment before Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The assessee was successful in challenging the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 before this Tribunal vide order dated 08/02/2019 wherein the coordinate bench, vide para 5.8 of the order, held that Ld.CIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 and therefore, quashed the order passed u/s 263.

4.

Following the Tribunal order, Ld. CIT(A) held that consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 would be null and void. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

5.

Upon enumeration of factual matrix, it is quite evident that revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 has already been quashed by the Tribunal and therefore, the consequential order passed by Ld.AO would not 3 Shri Kishore Ajitshi Bhatia Assessment Year :2012-13 survive. Nothing is on record to suggest that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in quashing 263 order has ever been reversed or overruled by any higher authority. Therefore, on the given facts and circumstances, the impugned order would not require any interference on our part.

6.

The appeal stands dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →