HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the CIT's section 263 order was quashed, the consequential assessment made by the AO had become non-est. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) should have cancelled the assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's original assessment was set aside by the CIT under section 263. A fresh assessment was made, which the assessee appealed. Subsequently, the Tribunal quashed the CIT's section 263 order.
What were the issues?
Whether a consequential assessment order remains valid after the order directing it is quashed. The validity of an assessment made pursuant to a section 263 order that was later quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri A.T. Varkey
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata dated 16.02.2018, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as infructuous.
The assessee in the present case is a company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing generation of power and energy. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order Haldia Petrochemicals Limited dated 30.12.2010, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,66,02,472/-. The said assessment was set aside by the concerned ld. CIT vide an order passed under section 263 dated 28.03.2013 with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh as per the directions given in the order under section 263. In pursuance to the direction given by the ld. CIT under section 263, a fresh assessment was made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 vide an order dated 03.03.2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,29,85,626/-.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Meanwhile the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT dated 28.03.2013 passed under section 263 came to be decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.06.2016 passed in whereby the order passed under section 263 was quashed by the Tribunal. When this position was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(Appeals) by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) treated the appeal filed by the assessee before him as infructuous and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, as a result of quashing of the order of the ld. CIT passed under section 263 by the Tribunal, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 had become non-est in the eyes of law and the ld. CIT(Appeals) ought to have cancelled the said assessment allowing the appeal of the assessee instead of dismissing the same. We accordingly modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) to this effect and cancel the assessment made by the Haldia Petrochemicals Limited Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act vide an order dated 03.03.2014.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on January 18th, 2019.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026