ITO, WD-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. ARABINDA ROY, HOOGHLY

1. The appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 15.09.2015 for AY 2008-09.

At the outset itself it has been brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) is against the order of AO which was passed by him (AO) while giving effect to the revisional order passed under section 263 order by the Ld. CIT, Kolkata-XX dated 06.03.2013, wherein the Ld. CIT has set aside the original assessment order dated 23.12.2010 with the direction to frame de novo assessment. According to Ld. AR, the assessee had challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT, Kolkata-XX u/s. 263 of the Act before the Tribunal vide (AY 2008-09) which has been decided by the Tribunal dated 24.08.2016, wherein the Tribunal was pleased to quash the 263 order of the Ld. CIT, Kolkata-XX. We have perused the order of the Tribunal which is placed from pages 5 to 12 of the paper book and we note that the order of Ld. CIT, Kolkata-XX dated 06.03.2013 for AY 2008-09 passed u/s. 263 was quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.08.2016. Meanwhile, we note that the AO has given effect to the order of Ld. CIT, Kolkata-XX dated 06.03.2013 and had passed the reassessment order dated 27.03.2014.. Since the revisional order of the Ld. CIT, Kolkata-XX dated 06.03.2013 has already been quashed, the reassessment order of the AO dated 27.03.2014 pursuant to Ld. CIT’s order is null in the eyes of law and, therefore, the consequential proceeding including the appeal before us by the department is non est in the eyes of law and, therefore, the appeal does not survive and so stands dismissed.

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed.