SRI KUSHAL RAJ D OSWAL,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1150/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 July 2016AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the order confirming the Section 263 revision was set aside by the High Court, the consequent assessment order was invalid. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per the High Court's directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal stemmed from an assessment order passed after a revisionary order under Section 263. The High Court had previously set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition made under Section 69 based on a Section 263 order, which was subsequently set aside by the High Court. The assessee also contended issues regarding the genuineness of purchase bills and the benefit of telescoping.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Appellant: Ms. Preethi Patil, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, Jt. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 01.07.2016Pronounced: 05.07.2016

Date of hearing : 01.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2016 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.08.2014 of the CIT(Appeals), Belgaum for the assessment year 2004-05 inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble C1T(A) ought to have held that the addition of Rs.21,24,207/- u/s 69 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of an order u/s 263 is bad in law. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had to obtain purchase bills (not accounted) from the Sales Tax Authorities; hence was not in a position to produce the same before the Assessing Authority. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in doubting the genuineness of the purchase bills produce before him as the same were obtained from the Sales Tax Officer. 5. Alternatively and without prejudice the Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have given the benefit of telescoping and peak investments. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add to delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the fact that this appeal emanates from the assessment order passed consequent to the order of the CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The order of the CIT was approved by the Tribunal and later on the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 13.6.2016 in of 2012 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, to adjudicate the issue and also enable the assessee to produce relevant material to put forth his case as sought to be urged.

3.

Since the order of the Tribunal confirming the order passed u/s. 263 was set aside, consequent order passed by the AO would become invalid and deserves to be quashed. Similarly, the consequential proceedings arising out of the consequential assessment order also do not survive. However, since the Hon’ble High Court has also restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issues in the terms indicated in the judgment, the right course for the Tribunal in this proceedings is only to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue afresh in light of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. A copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is placed on record and the proposition as suggested by the ld. AR was not objected to by the Revenue.

4.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the impugned issue afresh, in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →