DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI vs. SAROJ SUDHIR KOTHARI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4386/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2018AY 2006-072 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, finding no reason to interfere as the previous Tribunal order quashing the Section 263 order remained unchallenged by higher authorities. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed the assessment made by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 263. The CIT(A) had noted that a previous Tribunal order had already quashed the Section 263 revisionary order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order made consequent to a Section 263 revisionary order is valid when the revisionary order itself has been quashed by a higher appellate authority.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Narender Kumar CIT-DR
For Respondent: Shri Anant N Pai (AR)
Hearing: 21.06.2018Pronounced: 21.06.2018

O R D E R Per G S Pannu, Accountant Member

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-47, Mumbai, dated 28.02.2017, which in turn has arisen out of the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to A.Y. 2006-07.

2.

Notably, the impugned assessment was made by the Assessing Officer as a consequence of an order passed by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 31.03.2014. The CIT(A) noted that the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.11.2016 in had quashed the revisionary order passed by Commissioner u/s. 263 and, therefore, the Assessment made by the Assessing Officer would not survive. Against such decision of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us.

3.

Before us, the learned CIT-DR has not contested the factual matrix noted by the CIT(A) but pointed out that the appeal has been preferred by the Revenue to keep the matter alive because the order of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2016, quashing the order u/s. 263, has been contested in appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

4.

Considering the submissions put forth by the leaned CIT-DR and noting that the order of the Tribunal, dated 04.11.2016 (supra), continues to hold as it has not been altered by the higher authorities, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) in quashing the impugned assessment.

5.

Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

The above decision was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing in the presence of both the parties today i.e. 21st June, 2018.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →