Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:
The captioned four appeals filed by the Revenue , pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 respectively, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-20, Kolkata, which in turn arise out of separate assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) / 263 / 143(3) / 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”).
Since these four appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to same assessee, different assessment years, common and identical issues are involved therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
M/s Rashmi Metaliks Assessment Years:2009-10 to 2012-13 3. The revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 194/Kol/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10 is taken as a lead case. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:
1. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in facts and law to allow the appeal of the assessee against the revision assessment order under section 143(3) / 263 / 153A / 143(3) dated 20.12.2017 without verifying the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in facts and in law to declare the impugned revision assessment order of the Assessing Officer dated 20.12.2017 as ‘non-est’ without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in facts and in law to declare the impugned revision assessment order of the Assessing Officer dated 20.12.2017 as ‘non-est’ and consequently deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of deduction of Rs. 17,62,41,550/- without considering the fact that the assessee did not involve in infrastructure facility is not on public utility during the year for getting deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the department craves leave to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal in the course of Appellate proceedings.
These appeals filed by the Revenue are barred by limitation by 1 days. The revenue filed a condonation petition for requesting the bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and having regard to reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay; we condone the delay and admit these appeals of the Revenue for hearing.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the order u/s 263 passed by the ld. PCIT had been cancelled by the Tribunal vide to 816/Kol/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 dated 02.05.2018 therefore, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer should also be cancelled hence all the appeals filed by the revenue should be dismissed.
We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld Page | 2
M/s Rashmi Metaliks Assessment Years:2009-10 to 2012-13 CIT(A) and other materials available on record. We note the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata has cancelled the order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act vide ITA nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2019 order dated 02.05.2018. Since the Tribunal has cancelled the order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act therefore, the order made by the Assessing Officer consequent to section 263 order becomes infractuous and therefore according to us these all the appeals become infractuous and hence these appeals should be dismissed in limine. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue, is hereby upheld and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 13.11.2019