SPRINT ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 11, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3790/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 February 2018AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the Assessing Officer (AO) had subsequently passed a fresh assessment order accepting the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) directing a fresh assessment under Section 263. The Pr. CIT had initiated revision proceedings due to an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147.

What were the issues?

The appeal challenged the validity of the revision order under Section 263 on grounds of breach of natural justice and that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. The primary issue became academic after the AO's subsequent order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR)
For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Hearing: 07/02/2018Pronounced: 07/02/2018

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 11, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Pr. CIT has directed the AO to make do novo assessment exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner on the following effective grounds:- 1. “Breach of the principles of natural justice 1.1 The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 11, Mumbai [Ld. CIT], erred in framing the revision order u/s 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”) by not giving proper, sufficient and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.

2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 1.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order is required to be held as bad and illegal as the same is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, as well as with non- application of mind to the facts and the contentions brought on record by the Appellant.

Without prejudice to the above 2. Revision illegal 2.1 The Ld. CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act, revising the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order is bad, illegal and void as necessary pre-conditions for initiating the revision proceeding as well as the completion thereof were not fulfilled. 2.3 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the CIT failed to appreciate that:

(i) The assessment order framed was not “erroneous” within the meaning of section 263 of the Act, and (ii) In any case, the assessment order was not “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. 2.4 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no revision u/s 263 of the Act was called for. Without further prejudice to the above 3. On Merits 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, even 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 otherwise and on merits also, no such revision/direction was called for”.

3.

At the very outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the in this case, vide order dated 30.03.2017 passed u/s 263 of the Act the Ld. Pr. CIT directed the AO to pass do novo assessment order after making further enquiries and verifying the details of the share premium in question order. Now the AO has passed the order under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act after conducting further enquiries and accepted the contention of the assessee. Since, the AO has accepted the contention of the assessee, the present appeal has become academic. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal. The Ld. counsel has also submitted a written request in this regard.

4.

The Ld. departmental representative did not controvert the facts stated by the Ld. counsel for the Assessee. Hence, in view of the fact that the assessee’s contentions have been accepted by the AO and the request for withdrawal of the appeal, made by the counsel, we dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →