ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. CAVINKARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1074/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 November 2018AY 2003-043 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 Tribunal held that once the CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which had set aside the Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer's order was passed pursuant to directions from the CIT under Section 263. The assessee had previously appealed the CIT's Section 263 order before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the AO's order when the underlying CIT's order under Section 263 had been annulled by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]

For Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had set aside the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’’) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, observing that the ITA No.1074/2018 :- 2 -:

order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act stood annulled by this Tribunal.

2.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the directions of the ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, for impugned assessment year had not become final since Revenue has preferred further appeal before Jurisdictional High Court.

3.

Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative strongly supported the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 4. orders of the authorities below. The order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer was pursuant to directions of ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act. The directions of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act was carried in appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its order dated 22.02.2013 in & 1232/Mds/2012 had set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act. Once the order u/s.263 of the Act was set aside, consequential order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer will have no legs to stand. Sub-stratum for making such an order had disappeared. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in setting aside

ITA No.1074/2018 :- 3 -: the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 5.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 19th day of November, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →