JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SITU) CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATAJ, KOLKATA vs. CHENGMARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 512/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 September 2024AY 2014-15Bench: the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.”3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order of the Pr. CIT was set aside, the assessment order based on it had no legal basis. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's appeal. The original assessment order was passed under Section 263/143(3) based on a revisionary order from the Pr. CIT. However, this revisionary order was later set aside by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order based on a revisionary order that has been subsequently set aside is legally valid. The impact of a set-aside revisionary order on subsequent assessment and appeal proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surama, AR
For Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata, O/o Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Kolkata, 8th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700069 ....…...…………….... Appellant vs. M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd., 37, S B Towers, Shakerspeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017 [PAN: AABCC0672Q] .…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Sunil Surama, AR Department represented by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of concluding the hearing : 03.09.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 05.09.2024

ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2014-15 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (for short “the CIT”) dated 28.02.2023 arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019, passed under Section 263/143(3) of the Act.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd. “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and the basis of the order of the Ld. ITAT where the relevant order u/s 263 was wrongly quashed by ITAT.

2. The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alternation, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

3.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR fairly stated that on30.12.2019 an assessment order was passed against the assessee u/s 263/143(3) of the Act based on the revisionary order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT.

4.

The assessee, disagreeing with the assessment, filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however allowed the appeal of the assessee. Unjustified with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the intervening time, the revisionary order passed by the Ld. PCIT dated 29.03.2019 was set aside by the Tribunal through an order dated 31.01.2020. The Ld. AR stated that since the Tribunal has set aside the Ld. PCIT’s revisionary order, the assessment order that was framed based on the direction of Ld. PCIT no longer has a legal basis, consequently, appeal filed by revenue challenging the impugned order is rendered infructuous.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR could not controvert the fact.

6.

We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we note that since the Tribunal has already set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263, therefore, the assessment order framed on direction of Ld. PCIT and impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) has no legal basis. Therefore, appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order is rendered as infructuous. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 2 Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 05.09.2024. AK, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1 M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd 2. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata, 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →