DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if the order under Section 263 is quashed, any subsequent assessment order giving effect to it becomes infructuous. The Revenue could not provide any higher forum order reversing the ITAT's decision.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order holding the assessment order, which gave effect to a Section 263 order, as infructuous. This was because the ITAT had previously quashed the Section 263 order itself.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order giving effect to a Section 263 order is valid when the Section 263 order itself has been quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai dated 28.06.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] as infructuous.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered public charitable trust assessed to income tax from assessment year 1985-86 onwards. The assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act. Although the trust was registered under section 12A of the Act, it was claiming and has been allowed exemption under section 10(22) of the Act as an “Educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit” upto assessment year 1988-89 until the omission of section 10(22) of the Act. Thereafter the trust had been claiming and been allowed exemption under section 11 of the Act. Although in the return filed, the trust had claimed that the income will also be exempt under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, it was ascertained that the trust had not even made an application for notification before the prescribed authority and has therefore, not been notified, as such, for any year. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the trust and at the residences of its founder and managing trustee on 06.06.2007. Assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was made for the relevant assessment years.
2.1 Originally, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was made accepting the returned income on 14.12.2011. The above order of assessment was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT. After considering various submissions as well as verification of records, by quashing the assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the ld. CIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine and redo the assessment. Consequent to the order under section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for 12 details for the assessment year 2009-10. However, the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to wait till the appeal of the assessee filed against order under section 263 of the Act is disposed off by the ITAT. Thus, with the available details, the assessment by giving effect to order under section 263 of the Act was completed.
2.2 Against the order under section 263 of the Act passed by the ld. CIT, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 17.04.2015 in the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act.
Against the assessment order giving effect to order under section 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2015, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. DR has contended that against the order of the Tribunal quashing the order passed under section 263 of the Act, the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the matter has not attained finality and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reversed.
On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was quashed by passing order under section 263 of the Act holding that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Based on the directions of the ld. CIT vide his order under section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed assessment giving effect to order under section 263 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “4. I have gone through the giving effect to order, the grounds raised by the appellant and the order of the ITAT cited supra. After going through the same, in as much as the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 itself had been quashed, the order giving effect to passed by the AO have no legs to stand. Hence, the instant order, passed by the AO is hereby becomes infructuous. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed.” We find that the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) is duly fortified by the order of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Sweet Industries Ltd. in dated 22.10.2010 for the assessment year 2004-05. Further, the ld. DR could not furnish any order of higher forum having reversed the order passed by the Tribunal in quashing the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 31st January, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Sujit Paswan @ Sujit Pasman vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026