INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON vs. SUNRAY COTSPIN PVT. LTD., GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3222/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: Hon ble High court.5 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the Section 263 order was set aside by a coordinate bench, the subsequent assessment order based on it became infructuous. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which had set aside an assessment order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) relied on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case that had already set aside the Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the case based on a previous ITAT order that was not yet final, and whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 was valid after the Section 263 order was set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA &, Shri Parth Singhal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09/05/2024Pronounced: 17/05/2024

ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 31/08/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in deciding the case on the basis of decision of Hon ble ITAT and not on merit of the case, where decision of Hon'ble ITAT is not reached at finality as department appeal is pending before Hon ble High court.

2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the issue of share application money from the persons from whose creditworthiness could not be proved.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the issue of share Premium from the person from whose creditworthiness could not be proved.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the issue of Share application money for pending allotment from the persons from whom creditworthiness could not be proved.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 09/10/2014 and the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) by accepting the return of income on 18/08/2016. Subsequently, Ld. Pr.CIT, on examination of the case records found that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The order u/s 263(1) was passed by the Ld. PCIT, Gurgaon on 05/03/2019 setting aside the aforesaid assessment order and the matter was restored to the file of Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment order after making the proper enquiries, after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.sec. 263 of the Act was passed on 23/12/2019 by making the addition u/s 68 of the Act.

4.

In between the assessee filed an appeal before the Co-ordinate Bench against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and the Co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee vide order dated 21/02/2020 in for Assessment Year 2014-15 by setting aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act.

5.

The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.sec. 263 and against the above said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The Ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 31/08/2023 by considering the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case setting aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act observing that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 263 has no legal standing, considering the fact, the Co- ordinate Bench has set aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act.

6.

Aggrieved with the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us and in the grounds No.1 of the appeal, the Assessing Officer has raised the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT is not reached finality as Departmental Appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

7.

At the time of hearing, both the Counsels at the Bar have agreed that Co-ordinate Bench has decided the issue u/s 263 in favour of the assessee and set aside the order. Since, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of order passed u/s 263 of the Act and the same order was set aside by the Co- ordinate Bench, therefore, the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 263 becomes infructuous. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). We do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →