Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue contested orders of the CIT(A) which deleted assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263. The original assessment was made after a search, adding Rs. 25.47 Lakhs on account of cash deposits. Subsequently, the PCIT invoked revisionary proceedings u/s 263, which were then quashed by the Tribunal. The AO proceeded to pass fresh orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, ignoring the pendency of the appeal challenging the revisionary proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the consequential assessment orders passed by the AO, after the revisionary order u/s 263 was quashed by the coordinate bench, would be void ab initio. The appeal of the Revenue before the High Court or the absence of a stay at the time of passing the assessment order were held to be irrelevant.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 are valid when the revisionary order u/s 263 on which they were based, was quashed by the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
143(3), 263, 153(C), 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH Assess- S. Appeal Nos. ment Appellant Respondent No. Years 1 ITA-1735/Chny/2024 2013-14 Dhivaharan Jeyanandh, 2 ITA-1736/Chny/2024 2014-15 Deputy No.37, 2nd Main 3 ITA-1737/Chny/2024 2015-16 Commissioner Road, 4 ITA-1738/Chny/2024 2016-17 of Income Kalaimagal 5 ITA-1739/Chny/2024 2017-18 Tax, Chennai Nagar, 6 ITA-1740/Chny/2024 2018-19 Ekkattuthangal, Chennai , 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 & 1740/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:
2.0 In all the above appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19, the Revenue has contested the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) whereby order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 has been deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority through his common order bearing DIN and order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064139368(1) dated 16.04.2024. It is an admitted position that the facts as well as issues of the case are identical in all the appeals and adjudication in anyone appeal shall apply to all the other appeals also.
3.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153(C) was passed on 31.12.2019 after making additions of Rs.25.47 Lakhs on account of cash deposits. The assessment was passed pursuant to search u/s 132 on 09.11.2017, upon assesse’s father. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked revisionary proceedings u/s 263 on the premise that investment in Luxury Cars was made by the assesse through the impugned cash deposits of Rs.25.47 Lakhs. The assesse challenged the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 before this tribunal and consequently order of the Ld. PCIT dated 11.03.2021 was quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this tribunal in to 164/Chny/2021, all dated 22.12.2022, for AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 respectively. Meanwhile, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass orders u/s , 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 & 1740/Chny/2024 :- 3 -:
143(3) r.w.s. 263 for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 all dated 31.03.2022 by ignoring assesse’s request for keeping the proceedings in abeyance on account of its appeal challenging action u/s 263 pending before this tribunal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority held the view in his order dated 16.04.2024 Supra, that post order of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 22.12.2022 Supra the order of the Ld. AO cannot survive and hence he proceeded to annul the same.
4.0 We have considered the issue at hand in the light of material available on records. At the outset, it is seen that nobody appeared for the assesse for attending the hearing today. Accordingly, we have decided to examine and adjudicate the matter on the basis of material available in records. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was argued that as the department had not accepted the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 22.12.2022 Supra and had challenged the same before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court the Ld. AO’s order is correct. It was also urged that there was no stay available at that time when the assessment order was passed. Upon consideration of the whole matter, we are not inclined to accept the line of reasoning put forth by the Ld. DR. It is trite law and the same has been regularly reinforced in several judicial pronouncements that when the primary order (s)
, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 & 1740/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: passed by the PCIT (In this case being u/s 263), the consequential order (s) of assessment passed by the Ld. AO if any would be void ab initio and such orders cannot stand any test of judicial scrutiny. The revisionary order dated 11.03.2021 Supra has been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal mentioned above. The argument of Revenue being in appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court or absence of any stay on the date when the assessment order was passed will not have any relevance. Accordingly, we are of the view that the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in annulling the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 is based upon correct understanding and appreciation facts of the case and does not require any interference at this stage. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
5.0 Since the decision of Ld.CIT(A) is identical in all the years under consideration the above decision shall apply mutatis mutandis in all the appeals.
, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739 & 1740/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: 6.0 In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are therefore dismissed. Order pronounced on 11th, September-2024 at Chennai.