POPULAR INDUSTRY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 20(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1846/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 October 2018AY 2009-105 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly gave effect to the CIT's order under Section 263, as the assessee had not challenged the Section 263 order itself. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision upholding the AO's order was justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed, and subsequently, the CIT passed an order under Section 263, leading to a disallowance by the AO. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, and the present appeal is against that order.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly followed the directions of the CIT under Section 263, and whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order.

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, “C”

Before: HON’BLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/

per the directions contained in the order of the CIT. Ld. CIT has categorically observed that it is admittedly evident that the liability /expenditure to the extent of Rs. 9 lakhs was not genuine and that the claim of the assessee on account of development of land to the extent of such 9 lakhs made by the assessee in the return and accepted by the AO was not correct. Since the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was as per the directions of Ld. CIT, therefore the order passed by the AO was rightly upheld by Ld. CIT(A).

1.

It is also important to mention here that the assessee had not challenged the order passed by Ld. CIT u/s 263 in appeal and has only challenged the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of I.T. Act, which was in accordance with the directions so given by Ld. CIT. Therefore, the AO has not committed any illegality in following the directions of Ld. CIT.

Even before us, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

6.

In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd Oct, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (R. C. Sharma) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 03.10.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →