ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KEN FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that once the revisionary order under section 263 was quashed by the Tribunal, the consequent assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 263 became infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) concerning an assessment order. The CIT(A) had quashed a revisionary order passed by the PCIT under section 263.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in relying on a previous ITAT decision when the Revenue had challenged it, and the impact of quashing a revisionary order on the consequent assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E‘ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 03/11/2023 passed by ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263.
The Revenue has raised following grounds:-
Ken Financial Services Limited “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT vide order No. dated 31.05.2023 which has been challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High court by the revenue as the Hon'ble ITAT has not considered the information which was received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-4, Mumbai that the assessee had repaid the loans taken from various concerns operated by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, who was an entry operator and was controlling and managing various bogus-entities/companies?”
Here in this case, re-assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 was earlier completed on 29/12/2017. Thereafter, such an order was set aside under the revisionary jurisdiction by ld. PCIT u/s.263 vide order dated 30/03/2021. The said order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s.263 was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had quashed the order u/s.263 vide order dated 31/05/2023. Once the order u/s.263 has been quashed, then consequent assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.263 had become infructuous. This precisely had held by the ld. PCIT. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 27th May, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 27/05/2024 Karuna, Sr. Ps.
Ken Financial Services Limited
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026