ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI vs. M/S BELLAD & CO., HUBLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1412/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 October 2016AY 2009-102 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed, the Assessing Officer's order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 had become infructuous and did not survive.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The CIT(A) had noted that a previous order by the CIT under Section 263 had been quashed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer's order, passed pursuant to a CIT(A) order that was later quashed, remains valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

For Appellant: Shri. C. R. Nulvi, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Meera Srivastava, Additional CIT
Hearing: 26.09.2016

Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

1. This is a revenue’s appeal directed against the order of learned CIT (Appeals), Huballi dated 15.9.2015 for assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds raised by the revenue are as under:-

1.

The order of the Assessing Officer is opposed to law and facts.

2. The A.O. is not justified in disallowing Rs.34,32,127/- claimed as deduction u/s 801A by holding that profit of new undertaking to be computed as if it is the only business right from its inception and set off earlier year’s loss and depreciation against current year’s income of such eligible unit even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years. 3. For these and other grounds of appeal that may be urged at the time of hearing, the additions/disallowances mentioned above be deleted in the interest of natural justice.

Page 2 of 2 3. At the very outset, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that it is noted by learned CIT (A) in last Para of his order that order passed by learned CIT u/s 263 had been quashed by the tribunal and therefore, the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 has become infructous. Learned DR of the revenue could not controvert this findings of learned CIT (A).

4.

Considering the facts noted above, we find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT (Appeals) because the order passed by the learned CIT u/s 263 itself has been quashed by the tribunal and therefore, the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 does not survive.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of October, 2016.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →