INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KAMAL KISHORE MUKATI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BAPULAL MUKATI, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 376/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 January 2024AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the revision order was quashed, and the original assessment order was restored.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, setting aside an assessment order. The assessee appealed this revision order.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act. Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) survives if the primary addition is deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITANo.376 & 377/Ind/2023 Kamal Kishor Mukati erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, Ld. Pr.CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and was thus not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Thus, grounds of appeal raised in five appeal in to 874/Ind/2019 also stands allowed.

34. Thus, all the grounds raised in the instant appeals are allowed, impugned order u/s 263 of the Act are hereby quashed and the respective assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are restored. Considering the facts of the case as narrated above, the appellant's appeal is allowed as per the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Indore. The AO is directed to delete the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 24.09.2019.

4. Ld. DR has not disputed that the revision order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 has been quashed by this Tribunal. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case when the revision order has been quashed by this Tribunal then the order passed by the AO in pursuant to the revision order would not survive. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue the same is upheld.

5.

In the penalty appeal the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- invoked on 6/2 / 2020 u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”

6.

We have heard Ld. DR as well as Ld. AR and considered relevant material on record. Since the addition has been deleted in the quantum appeal therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Page 3 of 4

ITANo.376 & 377/Ind/2023 Kamal Kishor Mukati Act would not survive. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty when the addition in quantum appeal already deleted.

7.

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing on 31.01.2024.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →