MUKUL BANERJEE,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR. 24(2), HOOGLY

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 26.06.2023 for the AY 2014-15 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act').

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to an order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. No.: 559/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mukul Banerjee. Kolkata-8 [hereinafter referred to Ld. 'Pr. CIT'] u/s 263 of the Act whereby, the entire assessment was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at Bar that the assessee did not file any appeal against the said order u/s 263 of the Act of ld. Pr. CIT. The order of the ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, therefore, has attained finality. Once the impugned assessment order dated 13.12.2016 was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the ld. AO for de novo assessment, the appeal of the assessee before ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 13.12.2016 thus, has become infructuous and therefore any finding arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) would not have any legal sanctity.

In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and the same is quashed. However, if any differentiating fact which will have bearing on this order and has not been brought to our knowledge comes to the knowledge of the Revenue, the Revenue will be at liberty to file an application for rectification of this order.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th September, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 30.09.2024 Bidhan (P.S.)