MS. TIRUPATI REALITIES,UJJAIN vs. ITO-2(1), UJJAIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 473/IND/2024Status: HeardITAT Indore02 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M JOSHI (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a consequential assessment order had been passed by the AO, accepting the original assessed income after re-examining the issues raised by the PCIT. This resolved the issues identified by the PCIT.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a revision order passed by the PCIT, which in turn arose from an assessment order. The PCIT believed the original assessment order was passed without proper inquiries and verification, making it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is rendered infructuous due to a subsequent consequential assessment order that resolved the issues raised by the PCIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B)

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Fadnis, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Hearing: 01.04.2025Pronounced: 02.04.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 19.03.2024 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore-1 [“PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 15.04.2021 passed by learned National e-assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal- Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

This appeal was required to be filed by 18.05.2024 but the same was filed on 27.05.2024 after a delay of 9 days. The assessee is a partnership firm and it is explained by means of condonation-application and affidavit that the working partner of assessee-firm who was looking after income-tax matters, was out of India during 13.05.2024 to 20.05.2024 and the appeal documents could not be prepared and signed. Hence, delay occurred. Ld. AR for assessee/appellant prayed for condonation of delay and the Ld. DR for revenue/respondent did not have any objection. The explanation given by assessee is found as sufficient, the small delay of 9 days is condoned and the appeal is proceeded for hearing.

3.

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant AY 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs. 28,44,620/- which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and finally the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 15.04.2021 [“original assessment-order”] assessing the total income at Rs. 28,44,620/- accepting the returned income. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding, identified certain issues and viewed that AO has passed assessment-order without making required enquiries and verification of those issues. Accordingly, the PCIT termed the assessment-order passed by AO as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue and issued issued show-cause notice dated 30.01.2024 for conducting revisionary proceedings. Ultimately, the PCIT passed revision- order dated 19.03.2024 u/s 263 whereby the assessment-order dated

Page 2 of 4 15.04.2021 passed by AO was set aside directing the AO to re-examine those identified issues and re-frame assessment. Aggrieved by revision-order, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

4.

Ld. AR for assessee instantly informed that the AO has, in pursuance of revision-order, already passed assessment-order on 17.03.2025 bearing

[“consequential DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1074594915(1) assessment-order”]. Referring to same, AR further pointed that vide Para 3/Pages 2-10 of order, the AO has examined the issues identified by PCIT and finally concluded to have found no adverse inference. Thereafter, vide Para 5/Page 10 of order, the AO has accepted the returned income of Rs.

28,44,620/- as assessed in original assessment-order. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested the Bench to pass an appropriate order while indicating that he would have no objection even if the Bench dismisses present appeal since the assessee has no subsisting grievance in view of consequential assessment-order passed by AO accepting the originally assessed income.

5.

Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed.

6.

Thus, we find that the issues identified by Ld. PCIT in revision-order for setting aside the original assessment-order and reframing assessment, stand resolved in consequential assessment-order passed by AO. The AO has already passed consequential assessment-order accepting the originally assessed income and after such order, there remain no subsisting grievance

Page 3 of 4 to assessee. Being so, this appeal filed by assessee becomes meritless.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 02/04/2025

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →