ACIT CIRCLE-28(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREE BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the revisionary order passed under Section 263. Consequently, the assessment order derived from it was rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition for unproved purchases. The original assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order survives when the revisionary order under Section 263, which led to it, has been quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 15.12.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2012-13 which in turn is arising out of assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.
The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs.10,04,14,525/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO towards the unproved purchase of materials. It is pertinent to mention that the present proceedings before us are 3 At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the revisionary order of the Pr. Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act dated 15.12.2015 has been quashed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case titled as Shree Bhagwati Enterprises vs. Pr. CIT in A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 07.07.2017 and consequently all the proceedings emanating therefrom are also rendered infructuous. Therefore, all the consequent proceedings arising out of the said order are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. prayed that the appeal of the Department may kindly be dismissed as the source order passed under section 263 of the Act stands quashed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal.
The Ld. D.R. fairly agreed to the contentions that the order under section 263 of the Act has been quashed by the Tribunal however he relied on the grounds of appeal.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Act dated 15.12.2015 has been quashed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in (supra) and therefore the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 dated 30.12.2016 does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2019.
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. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026