JEALOUS VINCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 22.07.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-6(2), Kolkata u/s 144/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 19.03.2014 for assessment year 2008-09. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Ld Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

At the outset the Ld AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the original assessment was framed u/s 147/ 143(3) of the Act by the AO vide order dated 30-12- 2009 after making an addition of undisclosed income of Rs. 80,750.00 only.

The assessee against the order of AO preferred an appeal to Ld CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO vide order dated 22nd July 2016.

However the assessee also preferred an appeal to Hon’ble ITAT against the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT vide dated 30/03/2013. The Hon’ble ITAT was pleased to quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act in for assessment year 2008-09 vide dated 28-07-2017. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below : “4. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. A perusal of the record shows the following list of dates and events. List of dates S No. Date Event Page No. (a) 30.12.2009 Order u/s. 147 passed by the AO (b) 30.03.2013 Order u/s 263 passed by the CIT (c) 31.03.2012 Expiry of limitation u/s. 263, being 2 yrs. From the end of the financial year in which order u/s. 147 was passed 5. It is clear from the dates and event that the last date for passing an order of revision in terms of Sec. 263(2) of the Act in respect of the order of assessment sought to be revised viz., the order of assessment u/s. 147 rw.s. sec. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2013 was 31.3.2012. The impugned order was passed on 30.3.2013 which is clearly beyond the time limit contemplated u/s 263(2) of the Act. therefore the impugned order is held to be not valid in law as it is passed beyond the time limit contemplated u/s. 263(2) of the Act. the impugned order is accordingly quashed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 6. in the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.” In view of above proposition, the Ld AR further submitted that once the order passed u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the Hon’ble ITAT then all the orders passed subsequently to give effect to the order passed u/s 263 of the Act are not maintainable. Thus the order passed by the AO in pursuance to the direction u/s 263 is not maintainable and similarly the order of ld. CIT(A) became non-est. Accordingly, the