KARTHIK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-5(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1957/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2019AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the revisional order under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order confirming it do not survive. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed on this technical aspect.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the AO, which was a consequence of a revisionary order under Section 263 by the CIT. The ITAT had previously quashed the Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the assessment order passed pursuant to a Section 263 order that was subsequently quashed by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H”, BENCH

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj
For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas
Hearing: 27/06/2019Pronounced: 10/07/2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y.2008-09 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-12/DCIT-6(3)(2)/139/14-15 dated 31/01/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 27/03/2014 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- 5(2) (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

M/s. Karthik Financial Services Pvt.Ltd.,

2.

At the outset, we find that this is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the ld. AO, who had passed an order consequent to the order passed by the ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act. The order u/s.263 was passed by the ld. CIT-5, Mumbai on 26/03/2013. The assessee had originally preferred an appeal against this order passed u/s.263 before us which was disposed off by this Tribunal in for A.Y.2008-09 dated 26/03/2019 wherein this Tribunal had held that the ld. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. We hold that once the 263 order has been quashed by this Tribunal, consequently the order passed pursuant to the said 263 order by the ld. AO which had been further confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) does not survive. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on this technical aspect.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 10/07/2019

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/07/2019 KARUNA, sr.ps

M/s. Karthik Financial Services Pvt.Ltd.,

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →