DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1085/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a previous order of a coordinate bench which had set aside the CIT's order under Section 263. Consequently, the AO's order passed under Section 143(3) was also quashed.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the revenue and assessee were against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The assessee's appeal was based on a coordinate bench's order that had set aside the CIT's order under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) stands quashed consequent to the setting aside of the CIT's order under Section 263 by a coordinate bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM

For Appellant: DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.1085/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No.1067/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

The present two appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 8, Mumbai dated 26.12.17 for AY 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues involved in these two appeals are 2. common, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 1067/Mum/2018 (AY 2011-12) 3. First of all we take up assessee’s appeal in for assessment year 2011-12 as lead case.

4.

At the very outset, Ld. AR placed on record the copy of the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in for AY 2011-12, wherein Hon’ble ITAT had already set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 18.07.18 and submitted that order u/s 263 was passed by CIT and

5.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

6.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and also on perusal of the documents as well as the orders passed by lower authorities, we find that Coordinate Bench of ITAT in for AY 2011-12 had already set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 18.07.18, therefore the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by CIT and consequently order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act automatically stands quashed.

7.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the assesssee stands allowed.

(AY 2011-12) 8. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.1085/Mum/2018. Since we have decided the appeal filed

4 ITA No, 1067 & 1085/Mum/2018 Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd., by the assessee in for AY 2011-12 on merits. Therefore, following our own decision in ITA No. 1067/Mum/18, we apply the same findings in the present appeal in order to maintain judicial consistency which is applicable mutatis mutandis.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →