DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. VENUGOPAL BHARKARAN,, NASHIK

This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 10-01-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12.

At the outset we note that this is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO in consequent to the directions u/s. 263 of the Act.

Originally, the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.5,12,32,057/- inter alia making two additions to an extent of Rs.23,238/- and Rs.1,39,562/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,10,69,257/-. The Pr. CIT exercising his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act held the order of AO passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by its order dated 29-03-2016. In pursuance of the same, the AO made addition to an extent of Rs.38,59,825/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,50,71,882/-. As matter stood thus, the ITAT quashed the order of CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The ld. DR, Shri Rajesh Gawli 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 Pramod Shingte submits that when the ITAT quashed the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act and the consequential order therein should be treated as non-existent 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.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.