M/S.FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KCHI, COCHIN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a fresh assessment order was passed pursuant to the Pr.CIT's directions, which did not make any variations to the original assessment. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr.CIT) under Section 263. The Pr.CIT had set aside the original assessment order due to alleged short deduction of TDS and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal against the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 is maintainable when a subsequent assessment order, passed in compliance with the Pr.CIT's directions, makes no changes to the original assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, JM
Appellant by :Sri.Govind Shekar, CA Respondent by :Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 15.04.2024 Date of Hearing : 15.04.2024 O R D E R
Per Anil Kumar Dugar, JM :
This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax’s [“Pr.CIT” for short] order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017.
At the outset, the Learned Counsel, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the instant appeal has become infructuous in as much as the Ld. Assessing Authority had passed a fresh assessment order without making any variation to the income assessed in the original order of assessment order, pursuant to the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. Principal CIT, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.
The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection in this regard.
We have perused the records. It transpires that the Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi passed an assessment order on 24.12.2019. By the said assessment order dated 24.12.2019, the Ld. ITO enhanced the income declared by the assessee from a sum of Rs.60,64,780 to Rs.76,69,424
Pursuant to said assessment order dated 24.12.2019, the Pr.CIT, Kochi-1 initiated the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that there was a short deduction of TDS on the amount of Rs.58,63,430/- and Rs.1,31,35,520/- and as a result, there was short disallowance, i.e., 30% of the said amount, u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Ld.ITO. In view of such an omission and no enquiry made by the Ld.ITO in connection with said short deduction of TDS, the Pr.CIT set aside the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 with directions to Ld. ITO to make verification and examination in relation to short deduction of the TDS and pass a speaking order in accordance with the law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide order dated 30.03.2022.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Pr.CIT, Kochi-1, the assessee preferred the instant appeal.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted photocopies of the assessment order dated 10.03.2023, which had been passed by the Appropriate Assessing Authority, Assessment Unit, NFAC pursuant to the directions given by the Pr.CIT in his order passed under section 263 of the Act. It appears from the said assessment order dated 10.03.2023 that no new addition or variation was made, and the income assessed in the original assessment order remained unaltered.
In view of the above facts and the prayer made by the assessee that the instant appeal has become redundant, we dismiss the instant appeal as not pressed.
7. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026