ITO WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. QUIKJET CARGO AIRLINES P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6571/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2020AY 2009-104 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 CIT(A)'s decision, stating that once the Section 263 order was quashed by the Tribunal, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263, were invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which quashed an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263. This assessment order was passed pursuant to a direction from the CIT under Section 263. The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order because the ITAT had previously quashed the Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of an assessment order passed pursuant to a Section 263 direction, when the Section 263 order itself was subsequently quashed by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Kamal Mangal

The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 18th June 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009–10.

2.

Brief facts are, for the impugned assessment year the assessee company filed its return of income on 30th September 2009, declaring total income at nil after claiming loss. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order

2 Quikjet Cargo Airlines Pvt. Ltd. dated 23rd December 2011, determining the loss at ` 34,21,63,504, under the normal provisions of the Act after disallowing certain expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The assessment order so passed was subjected to proceedings under section 263 of the Act and ultimately learned Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of power under section 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make de novo assessment after conducting appropriate enquiry. In pursuance to the directions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act on 9th February 2015, determining the loss at ` 21,87,81,648, under the normal provisions of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.

3.

During the appeal proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that while disposing off the appeal filed by the assessee contesting the order passed under section 263 of the Act, the Tribunal has quashed the order passed under section 263 of the Act and restored the original assessment order. Accordingly, he quashed the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act.

4.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application by the assessee seeking adjournment either. Therefore, we proceed to 3 Quikjet Cargo Airlines Pvt. Ltd.

dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

5.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, the assessment order under challenge before learned Commissioner (Appeals) was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act in pursuance to the directions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. Uncontroverted facts are, against the order passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee had preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 15th February 2017, has quashed the order passed under section 263 of the Act. Thus, once the order passed under section 263 of the Act has been quashed, all proceedings in pursuance to such order would have no validity. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act, would have no locus standi. That being the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that the assessment order so passed is void ab initio, hence, has to be quashed. There being no infirmity in the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we uphold the same by dismissing the grounds raised. Mere filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court

4 Quikjet Cargo Airlines Pvt. Ltd. challenging the decision of the Tribunal would not make the order inoperative.

6.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.01.2020

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →