Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad dated 29.12.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10.
2 ITA No.399/PUN/2016 A.Y.2009-10
The Revenue in appeal has assailed the findings of Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals) only on the ground that the Department is in
process of filing appeal against the order of Tribunal based on which
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief to the
assessee.
Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department submitted that
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessee
on the basis of order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.
799/PN/2014 for assessment year 2009-10 dated 23.12.2015 wherein
the Tribunal has held that invoking of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect
of additions/disallowances u/s. 43B and 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194C are bad in
law. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer in proceedings u/s.
143(3) r.w.s 263 had merely given effect to the order of Commissioner of
Income Tax passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The order giving effect to the
order u/s. 263 is prior to the order of Tribunal in ITA No.
799/PN/2014(supra).
Notice of appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD. Notice
was duly served as is evident from acknowledgement available on file.
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of assessee, nor there
is any letter seeking adjournment on behalf of assessee. It appears that
assessee is not keen to pursue the matter in appeal. Therefore, we are
deciding this appeal on the basis of submissions made by the ld. DR
and material available on record.
3 ITA No.399/PUN/2016 A.Y.2009-10
The Tribunal in ITA No. 799/PN/2014 for assessment year 2009- 10 has held that the additions proposed by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s. 40(a)(ia) and u/s.43B are not sustainable. Once, the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 exercised by Commissioner of Income Tax is held to be bad in law, the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are vitiated. Hence, the proceedings arising from order of Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 would be invalid. Accordingly, present appeal filed by the Department is mis-conceived and is dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 08th day of February, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नल चतुव�द� /ANIL CHATURVEDI) (�वकास अव�थी /Vikas Awasthy) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 08th February, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.
// स�या�पत ��त // True Copy //
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.