PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI - 8, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2896/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 as the assessment order it sought to revise was already annulled and deemed void by a prior Tribunal ruling. Therefore, the PCIT's action was based on a non-existent order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an order by the PCIT which assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and set aside a previous assessment order. The PCIT's order was based on the assessment order dated 26/02/2022. However, this assessment order itself had been annulled by a previous Tribunal order.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT can assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on an assessment order that has already been annulled and declared void by the Tribunal.

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, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/w Priyank Gala, A/Rs
Hearing: 25/07/2024Pronounced: 25/07/2024

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. PCIT, Mumbai-8, dt. 30/03/2024, pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that ld. PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and further erred in setting aside the assessment order dt. 26/02/2022 holding that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

3.

Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

4.

The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is that the assessment order dt. 26/02/2022 which is the subject matter for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act has been annulled by this Tribunal in ITA No. 727/Mum/2022, order dt. 28/12/2022. Since the base has been removed, the superstructure must fall. The relevant findings of the Tribunal read as under:- “7. 2. In view of above directions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it is amply clear that the draft assessment order has been held to be unsustainable and the Ld. DRP has also restrained form issuing any direction. In such circumstances, the Ld. Assessing Officer could not have proceeded in passing this final assessment order. Once the draft assessment order passed itself has been set aside, in absence of which final assessment order passed is also not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash this impugned order of Ld. Assessing Officer as void and invalid in law. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.

7.3.

Since, we have held the impugned assessment order as void we are not required to adjudicate upon other grounds of appeal as same are rendered only academic.”

5.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the ld. PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in respect of a non-est order. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and allow the appeal of the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th July, 2024 at Mumbai. (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25/07/2024 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु" अपील

4.

( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →