ANNA ALUMINIUM COMPANY PVT LTD,ALUVA vs. THE PCIT KOCHI -1, KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 361/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 November 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction under section 263 had become academic due to the subsequent passing of a consequential assessment order by the AO, which was already challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, and the AO completed the assessment as per the returned income. The PCIT, however, found the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts was not properly examined.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was valid when a consequential assessment order, which was the subject of appeal before the CIT(A), had already been passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN

Hearing: 20.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

AssessmentYear:2018-19 Anna Aluminium Company Private Limited KP 111 847 Kizhakkambalam Vs. Aluva PCIT Ernakulam 683 562 Kochi Kerala PAN NO : AAFCA6562R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri.Harikrishnanunny, CA Respondent by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of PCIT Kochi dated 28.3.2023.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee, filed its return of income on 24.10.2018 declaring an income of Rs.8,59,05,700/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued various notices to the assessee and sought compliance from the assessee and completed the assessment as per the returned income.

Anna Aluminium Company Private Limited, Aluva Page 2 of 3 3. The ld. PCIT called for records and examined the records of assessment and observed that the AO has not examined the claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts. The ld. PCIT was of the view that the AO has allowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts merely for the provisions made by the assessee. Therefore, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT terming the order of Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue set aside the same.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee has come up in appeal. At the outset, we observe that the consequential assessment order in pursuance to the order of section 263 has already been completed, and in consequential order the AO has made the additions on account of provisions made for bad and doubtful debts. When the Bench asked the assessee as to whether he is challenging the consequential order before the ld. CIT(A), the counsel for the assessee candidly accepted yes, and submitted that the assessee is in appeal before the CIT(A).

4A. After considering the rival submissions and material on record we are of the view that questionability of the jurisdiction under section 263 is now become academic in view of the subsequent development i.e. passing of subsequent order by the AO and challenge of the same before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that the present appeal has no merit and hence we dismiss the same.

5.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. We hereby clarify that assessee can challenge issue on merits before the CIT(A) in accordance with law.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →