Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”, BENCH
Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y.2007-2008 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-I/DCIT(LTU)/52/2014-15 dated 28.12.2017 (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 12.11.2014 by the ld. Income Tax Officer – LTU, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. In the present appeal, the assessment was framed originally by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act on 26.05.2011 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.12,87,74,27,653/-. This assessment was Tata Motors Ltd. subjected to revisional proceedings u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. Administrative CIT, wherein the ld.CIT vide order u/s.263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2014 set aside the order of ld. AO treating the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in respect of certain issues. Against this order of ld.CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
Meanwhile, the AO passed order giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act making certain additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
The appeal preferred by the assessee before this Tribunal was decided in favour of the assessee in vide order dated 05.04.2017, wherein this Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to relief based on decided judicial precedents available on the date of passing of assessment order by the ld.AO and, hence, there cannot be any error that could be attributed in the order of ld. AO by the ld.CIT(A) warranting the revisional jurisdictional u/s.263 of the Act. In other words, additions, that were subject matter of adjudication in the revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, got ultimately deleted on merits by the order of this Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) had placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal dated 05.04.2017 (supra) granting relief to the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the Tata Motors Ltd. order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised
by the Revenue.