Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment order was revised by the PCIT, which was later quashed by the ITAT. However, before the ITAT order, the AO passed a fresh assessment order based on the PCIT's earlier revision. The PCIT then passed a second revision order based on this fresh assessment order, which is now under appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's second revision order was based on an earlier revision order that had already been quashed by the ITAT. Therefore, the PCIT could not have passed the impugned order. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether a revisionary order passed by the PCIT is valid when it is based on a subsequent assessment order that itself arose from a previous revisionary order which was quashed by the ITAT. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 24.03.2024 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhopal-1 [“PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“impugned order”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act for Assessment-Year [“AY”]
DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal- Memo (Form No. 36).
The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:
(i) The assessee filed return of income of relevant AY 2015-16 on 19.09.2015 which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated
21.11.2017 assessing total income at Rs. 1,05,29,910/-.
Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment- proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order passed by AO was erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which attracted revisionary-jurisdiction u/s 263. Accordingly, the PCIT passed revision-order dated 31.01.2020 u/s 263 setting aside the aforesaid original assessment-order passed by AO and giving direction to AO to pass a fresh assessment order de novo. The assessee challenged revision-order in appeal before ITAT, Indore bench in ITA
No. 147/Ind/2020. The said appeal was disposed of by ITAT, Indore vide order dated 31.07.2023 wherein the aforesaid revision-order dated 31.01.2020 was quashed and the assessment-order dated 21.11.2017 passed by AO was restored. (ii) During the intervening period (i.e. before passing of order dated 31.07.2023 by ITAT, Indore Bench disposing of the AO had already passed a fresh assessment-order Page 2 of 8
DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16 dated 29.03.2022 pursuant to aforesaid revision-order dated
31.01.2020 wherein the AO accepted the originally assessed income of Rs. 1,05,29,910/- without any change. The Ld. PCIT again examined the record of fresh assessment-proceeding and viewed that the order of fresh assessment passed by AO was also erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which attracted revisionary- jurisdiction u/s 263. Accordingly, the PCIT passed a new revision- order dated 24.03.2024.
(iii) Now, the assessee is aggrieved by this new revision-order dated
24.03.2024 and come in present appeal before us impugning the same.
Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the Ld. PCIT has passed impugned order u/s 263 revising the order of fresh assessment dated 29.03.2022 passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 in pursuance of earlier revision-order dated 31.01.2020 passed by PCIT u/s 263 but the said revision-order dated 31.01.2020 had already been quashed by ITAT, Indore bench in aforesaid order dated 31.07.2023. Therefore, when the said revision-order has already been quashed, the order of fresh assessment dated 29.02.2022 passed in pursuance thereof has become infructuous. Consequently, the PCIT could not pass the impugned order dated 24.03.2024 revising the same. However, on perusal of impugned order, we find that the Ld. PCIT was not aware of ITAT’s order dated 31.07.2023 in since it was not brought to the knowledge of PCIT by assessee. Ld. AR for assessee also Page 3 of 8
DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16 accepts this factual aspect in open court. In the situation, after deliberations during hearing, we are inclined to re-store this matter at the level of Ld.
PCIT who shall take a fresh call in present matter after taking into account the ITAT’s order dated 31.07.2023 in ITA No. 147/Ind/2020. We order accordingly.
The registry has informed a delay of 293 days in filing present appeal.
The assessee has filed following affidavit for condonation of delay: Page 4 of 8 DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16 Page 5 of 8 DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16 Page 6 of 8 DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16 Page 7 of 8 DBL Jaora - Sailana Tollways Private Ltd. AY 2015-16
Considering the averments made in affidavit and in view of the peculiar fact that the impugned revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT is itself based on an infructuous order of fresh assessment dated 29.03.2022, the delay is condoned.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 25/11/2025