No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, JM & Dr.A.L.Saini, AM]
ORDER
Per Aby T.Varkey, JM
This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-Central- I, Kolkata dated 18.12.2013 for A.Y 2006-07.
At the outset itself the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned order which is being challenged emanates from the order of the AO giving effect to the order of CIT-I, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 08.03.2011. The ld. Counsel submitted that the order of CIT –I, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 08.03.2011 was successfully challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal which was pleased to cancel the 263 Revisional order of CIT on 26.10.2016 vide for the instant A.Y.2006-07 which is before us. Therefore according to the ld. Counsel the order of the AO which culminated in the impugned order dated 18.12.2013 is non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore the revenue’s appeal is infructuous. The ld. DR admitted the fact that the order impugned emantes from the CIT order passed u/s 263 dated 08.03.2011 which has already been cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2016.
2 M/s. Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) stems from the assessment order passed by the AO which in turn was passed after the CIT ‘s revision order u/s 263 of the Act passed on 08.03.2011. Thereafter the order of the CIT has been cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2016. Therefore order passed by the AO after the revision order u/s 263 passed by CIT is non-est in the eyes of law and therefore the impugned order of the CIT (A) which stems from the order of AO which is non-est in the eyes of law is null. Therefore the appeal of the revenue becomes infructuous and so is dismissed.
In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 06. 01.2017.