DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N.SASIKALA, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessment order, being consequential to the quashed revision order, had no basis. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not provide any contrary judgment.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal because the Tribunal had previously quashed the revision order under section 263, making the subsequent assessment order consequential and infructuous.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 is valid when the revision order under section 263 has been quashed by a higher authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai dated 29.06.2018 relevant to the assessment year 1994-95. The only effective ground in this appeal raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting all the additions made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed her return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 admitting an income of ₹.24,06,902/- after issuance of a notice under section 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act on 27.03.1997, which was set aside by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 26.03.1998. Accordingly, the reassessment was completed under section 144 of the Act on 20.03.2000 determining the total income at ₹.28,86,030/-, which was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. It was further submission that by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, vide order dated 14.03.2002, the ld. CIT set aside the reassessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after making investigation/enquiries, etc. It was a submission that against the revision order under section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act by determining the total taxable income of the assessee at ₹.1,34,33,485/- vide order dated 20.03.2003. It was a submission that against the order under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dated 28.10.2007 in the Tribunal quashed the order passed under section 263 of the Act. It was further submission that against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 20.03.2003, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and vide order dated 29.06.2018, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that since the Tribunal has quashed the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act, the impugned assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act is consequential to the revision order and thus, no legs to stand and becomes infructuous.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the grounds of appeal, the ld. DR has submitted that the decision of the Tribunal against the revision order under section 263 of the Act has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and pleaded for reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the order passed by the Tribunal against order under section 263 of the Act. In this case, against the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since vide order dated 18.10.2007 in the Tribunal has quashed the revision order itself, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the impugned assessment which was consequential to the revision order, has no legs to stand and becomes infructuous, thereby allowed the appeal of the assessee.
4.1 By following the decision of the Tribunal in quashing the order passed under section 263 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the impugned assessment order, which is consequential to the revision order, has no legs to stand and thereby the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act becomes infructuous. The ld. DR could not controvert the order passed by the Tribunal against the revision order under section 263 of the Act by filing higher Court decision having modified or reversed. Just because the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, we are unable to take a different view in the absence of any relevant judgement. In view of the above, the contention of the Revenue is devoid of merits and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 06th May, 2020 at Chennai.
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 →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026