DCIT, CIR-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 422/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 January 2017AY 2006-20073 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT's revision order under Section 263 had already been cancelled by the Tribunal in a previous appeal. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were rendered non-est and null.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which stemmed from an assessment order passed by the AO. This assessment order was made pursuant to a revision order passed by the CIT under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order and subsequent appellate order are valid when they are based on a CIT's revision order that has subsequently been cancelled by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, JM & Dr.A.L.Saini, AM]

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A No. 422/Kol/2014
ITA No.549/Kol/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

Per Aby T.Varkey, JM

1.

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.

2.

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.

4.

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 06. 01.2017.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →