VASANTHA MALLIKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 5, VIRUDHUNAGAR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the reopened assessment order was indeed set aside by the CIT's revision. The assessee was advised to challenge any subsequent consequential assessment order.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment. The CIT revised the Assessing Officer's order, directing a redo of the assessment. The CIT(A) held that the original reopened assessment order was no longer surviving due to the revision.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's appeal challenging the reopening of assessment was maintainable when the original reopened assessment order was subject to revision by the CIT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Madurai, dated 17.04.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.
In this case, the reopening of assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.148 of the Act on 12.01.2015. The said order was subject to revision by the ld.CIT u/s.263 of the Act vide order dated 20.03.2017 wherein he has given certain directions to the ld. Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. In the meantime, the assessee went in appeal against the order of ld. Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.148 of the Act on 12.01.2015 challenging the re-opening of assessment. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that since the re-opened assessment order dated 12.01.2015 was subject to revision u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. CIT, as such it was not surviving. The ground raised by the assessee before him challenging the reopening of the assessment is no more existence.
Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As rightly pointed by the ld.D.R, reopening of assessment order dated 12.01.2015 was no more surviving. It was subject to revision by the ld.CIT vide order passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 20.03.2015. As such, I am of the opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding the impugned order was already set aside by ld. CIT. Being so, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and the same is confirmed. Further, I am inclined to mention herein that the assessee is at liberty to challenge the re- opening of assessment by challenging the consequential assessment order, if so advised.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
