AGFA INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

आदेश / ORDER

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

2.1 Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of

distribution of photographic and electronic imaging system. Assessee

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 27.02.2009 declaring total

income of Rs.18,50,34,493/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and

thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order

dt.14.12.2011. Ld. CIT thereafter noticed that AO had passed order u/s

143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2011 by making addition of Rs.5,70,49,840/-

without issuing draft order of the proposed addition to the assessee as

required u/s 144C of the Act. The Ld. CIT therefore, vide order

dt.29.01.2014 passed order u/s 263 of the Act, held that the order

passed by the AO to be not in conformity with law and therefore the

order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial

to the interest of Revenue. He accordingly set aside the order and

directed the AO to pass a fresh order after following the procedure laid

down u/s 144C of the Act. Pursuant to the directions of ld. CIT, order

was passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144(C)(13) of the Act vide order

dt.15.01.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs.24,20,84,330/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us.

passed by Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, assessee had preferred

appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA

Nos.341/PN/2014 and ITA No.1072/PN/2014 vide order dt.28.10.2015

had cancelled the order passed by Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. He placed

on record the copy of the aforesaid order of Tribunal and pointed to the

relevant findings of the Tribunal. He therefore submitted that, since the

order passed by ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act itself has been quashed, the

consequential impugned order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of

the Act, pursuant to the directions u/s 263 of the Act does not survive.

Ld.D.R. did not controvert the submissions made by Ld.A.R. but however

supported the order of AO.

record. In the present case, we find that initially the order was passed by

AO u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.14.12.2011. Thereafter, Ld. CIT

vide order dt.29.01.2014 held that the order of AO passed u/s 143(3) of

the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and

accordingly set aside the assessment order. Assessee challenged the

order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act before the Tribunal. The

Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dt.28.10.2015 quashed the

order of Ld. CIT dt.29.01.2014. Since the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s

263 of the Act itself has been cancelled, the consequential impugned

order passed pursuant to the directions passed u/s 263 of the Act by AO

does not survive and therefore the grounds raised by the assessee have

been rendered academic. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are

dismissed.

Order pronounced on 28th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 28th February, 2018. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy // // True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.