DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the section 263 proceedings were quashed, the subsequent orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were invalid. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/263. The Tribunal had previously quashed the section 263 proceedings for the same assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are sustainable when the underlying section 263 proceedings have been quashed by the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
Dabur Invest Corp., Vs JCIT, 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-46, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AADFD2529G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue by : None Date of Hearing : 25.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 28th December, 2018 and 31st December 2018 of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. & 772/Del/2019 SA Nos.111 & 112/Del/2019 2. None represented on behalf of the Revenue in these cases on the ground that the Revenue has filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal which is pending. The oral request for adjournment was rejected and the matter was disposed of on the basis of the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee.
The assessee in the various grounds of appeal in both the appeals has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3)/263 of the IT Act, 1961.
The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act for both the assessment years determining the total income at Rs.246,99,28,487/- for assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.246,97,30,175/- for assessment year 2014-15. Referring to the copy of the order of the Tribunal vide & 1764/Del/2018, order dated 11th March, 2019 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively, he submitted that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 has been quashed by the Tribunal and therefore, the subsequent orders passed by the A.O. and CIT (A) do not have any legs to stand. He accordingly submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee have to be allowed for both the years.
We have heard the ld. counsel for the assessee and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer, in the instant cases, has passed orders u/s 143(3)/263 for both the years. We find the Tribunal in & 1764/Del/2018, order dated 11th March, 2019, for the impugned 2 & 772/Del/2019 SA Nos.111 & 112/Del/2019 years has quashed the section 263 proceedings initiated by the CIT and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. The relevant observations of the Tribunal at para 74 of the order reads as under:- “74. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality, from all possible angles, we are of the considered view that the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The orders of the PCIT are, accordingly, set aside and that of the Assessing Officer are restored.”
Since the orders passed u/s 263 have been quashed by the Tribunal for both the assessment years under appeal, therefore, the subsequent orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) do not have any legs to stand and have to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly. The appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are accordingly allowed.
Stay Applications Nos.111 & 112/Del/2019 7. Since the appeals filed by the assessee are heard and decided in the preceding paragraphs, the Stay Applications filed by the assessee have become infructuous and are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e., on 25.04.2019.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026