DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S VSL INDIA PVT LTD, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 838/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 September 2018AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was consequential to a Section 263 order which had been set aside by the Tribunal. Since the Section 263 order was not in existence, the consequential order could not stand independently. The pending High Court appeal did not justify allowing the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the notice was returned. The Revenue's representative argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the appeal because a High Court appeal was pending against a Tribunal order that had set aside a Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

Whether a consequential assessment order can stand independently when the revisional order it was based upon has been set aside by the Tribunal, despite a further appeal pending before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 14.08.2018Pronounced: 12.09.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Chennai, dated 20.12.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

2.

No one appeared for the assessee when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The notice sent by the Registry by RPAD was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement “left”.

Therefore, we heard Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

3.

Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. D.R. submitted that consequent to the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 31.12.2012.

According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee challenged the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act before this Tribunal. This Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner. According to the Ld. D.R., further appeal was filed by the Revenue before the High Court and the same is pending for disposal. Since the appeal is pending before the High Court, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee.

4.

We heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the relevant material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order consequent to the direction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. The order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was set aside by this Tribunal and as on today, it is not in existence. Therefore, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot stand independently. Mere pending of appeal before the High Court against the order of this Tribunal setting aside the order of Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act cannot be a reason to allow the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →