ITO 1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SALASAR SILK MILLS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5777/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2019AY 2010-114 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) had rightly set aside the AO's order because the order passed under Section 263, which formed the basis for the reassessment, had itself been quashed by a prior ITAT decision. Therefore, the reassessment order was null and void.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,12,50,000/- made under Section 68. The addition was a consequence of an order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263, which had set aside the original assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 is valid if the Section 263 order is subsequently quashed. Whether the CIT(A) erred in treating the reassessment order as null and void.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat
For Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (DR)
Hearing: 08.01.2019Pronounced: 30.01.2019

Assessee by: Shri Sunil Hirawat Department by: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (DR) Date of Hearing: 08.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The revenue has raised the following grounds: - “I Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,12,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act in the Assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act, which was in consequence to order u/s 263 passed by the Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai.

ITA. No. 5777/M/2017 A.Y.2010-11 ii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, as null and void, without appreciating the fact that the order of the ITAT, relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has not been accepted by the Department. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, to amend or withdraw the aforesaid grounds of appeal

."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 02.09.2010 for the A.Y. 2010-11 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.16,33,000/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 17.01.2013. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax-1 reopened the case u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2015 and set aside the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on the issue of high share premium. The CIT(A) has invoked the power u/s 263 of the Act on the following grounds .: - (i)The share premium amount received by assessee, while increasing the assets in balance-sheet in the form of cash/bank balance does not create any liability in the balance-sheet. This amount of premium gets reflected in the reserves and under the Company’s Act the nature of these reserves are such which can be distributed to the share-holders in the form of bonus shares. The relevant provisions of Company’s Act applicable to share premium are u/s 78 of Company’s Act. What can be distributed to share-holders of assessee are only profits or accumulated profits. Therefore, primary nature of premium receipt is revenue and therefore, chargeable to tax.

ITA. No. 5777/M/2017 A.Y.2010-11 (ii) In the alternative, since the nature of receipt has not been explained, the premium amount credited in the books of account is chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the Act.”

4.

Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment of the assessee and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the I.T. Act. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.171,28,03,350/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the said addition, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us.

5.

We have heard the argument and advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. Before going further, we deemed it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.: - “3 Since the order of the PCIT, passed u/s 263 has been quashed by the Hon’ble ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Mumbai for the AY 2010-11 vide dated 7.4.2017, thus the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 becomes null and void and hence no adjudication is required. The present appeal is disposed off accordingly. For statistical purposes, the Grounds of appeal

are dismissed.”

6. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the CIT(A) has set aside the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on the basis of this fact of Hon’ble ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Mumbai has set aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act in ITA. No.1964/M/2015 dated 07.04.2017. Undoubtedly, in the said

ITA. No. 5777/M/2017 A.Y.2010-11 circumstances, when the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is nowhere in existence, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly set aside the finding of the AO dated 01.03.2016, therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order quite justifiable and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →