Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3). The original assessment order was passed on 18.12.2018. A subsequent order under section 263 was passed by the PCIT on 30.03.2021, directing a fresh assessment. The AO then passed an order on 20.03.2022. The assessee had also filed appeals in earlier rounds, which were restored back for fresh consideration.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) had not taken into account a previous order by the CIT(Appeals) dated 22.02.2024, which had allowed the assessee's appeal. Furthermore, since the proceedings under section 263 were sent back to the PCIT for fresh consideration, the subsequent proceedings became infructuous. The present appeal was also deemed infructuous.
Key Issues
The appeal concerns deduction under section 80P and cost of funds, and whether the CIT(Appeals)'s order was passed in light of previous related proceedings and orders.
Sections Cited
263, 143(3), 144B, 250, 254, 80P
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 263 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 22.2.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2016-17.
The issues involved in this appeal is regarding deduction u/s. 80P and cost of funds. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the AO initially passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 18.12.2018. Subsequently the order u/s 263 was passed by the PCIT, Panaji on 30.03.2021 directing the AO for fresh assessment. and the AO passed the OGE order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 20.03.2022. Accordingly, the AO passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B on 20.03.2022. Meanwhile, the assessee had filed appeal before the ITAT against the order u/s. 263 of PCIT dated 30.03.2021 in and the Tribunal by order dated 13.10.2022 restored back the matter to the PCIT for fresh decision.
On the other hand, the assessee had also filed appeal against the order u/s. 143(3) dated 18.12.2018 before the CIT(A), Mangalore and he dismissed the appeal of assessee. On further appeal before the ITAT in the Tribunal by order dated 14.08.2019 restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
In the second round of set aside proceedings u/s. 263 r.w.s.254 of the Act, the PCIT passed order on 15.09.2023, against which assessee filed appeal in ITA No.766/Bang/2023. The assessee submitted that the CIT(Appeals) passed order u/s. 250 r.w.s. 254 had already allowed relief to the assessee by order dated 22.02.2024 and hence the appeal before ITAT had become infructuous and sought for withdrawal of appeal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2024.
The ld. AR filed synopsis on the above facts. After hearing both the sides, we note that the impugned order of the CIT(A), NFAC dated 22.02.2024 has not taken note of the fact of the order of the CIT(Appeals) order passed u/s. 250 r.w.s. 254 dated 22.02.2024 allowing the appeal of the assessee and the Tribunal in dated 15.04.2024 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn/infructuous. Since the proceedings u/s. 263 order dated 30.03.2021 has been sent back to the PCIT for fresh consideration by the ITAT in ITA No.737/Bang/2022 order dated 13.10.2022, therefore, the subsequent proceedings on the very basis of order u/.s 263 dated 30.3.3021 passed by the AO and CIT(A) becomes infructuous. The assessee has filed appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 22.02.2024 against 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 20.3.2022. Accordingly, the impugned order and the present appeal is also infructuous, therefore the appeal by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.