SH. PANKAJ NAGALIA,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2191/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the case was squarely covered by a High Court order which allowed the revenue's appeal. The High Court had deemed the issue of the CIT's revisional power academic due to a completed reassessment.

What were the facts?

The CIT invoked revisional powers under Section 263 to cancel an assessment order. The assessee challenged this cancellation, arguing the CIT was not justified. However, the High Court had previously ruled on a similar case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT's invocation of revisional powers under Section 263 to cancel an assessment order was justified, especially when a High Court had ruled on similar facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA & SHRI C.M.GARG

Hearing: 11.05.2016Pronounced: 13.05.2016

PER C.M.Garg, JM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee has been directed against the order of CIT-Dehradun dated 26/03/2013 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘Act’) for AY 2008-09 cancelling the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

Pankaj Nagalia 2. We have heard argument of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the cancelling the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. At the very outset, the ld. Departmental Representative drawn our attention towards order of Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhan dated 31.12.2012 passed of 2012 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has taken a view that having regard to the fact that the assessment order was complete before appeal was taken up the question, whether by user of power u/s 263 of the Act, in the instant case, was or was not appropriate, become academic inasmuch as, reassessment was permitted without any prejudice to the pending appeal. Ld. DR also pointed out that the order of the Tribunal, setting aside the order u/s 263 of the Act, has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court in the similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, present case is also covered in favour of the revenue by the order of the Hon’ble High Court (supra).

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supported the case of the assessee and submitted that the CIT-Dehradun was not justified invoking revisional powers u/s 263 of the Act cancelling the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2008-09. However, he could not assist us to take different view on the issue of validity of order u/s 263 of the Act when in the similar set of facts and Pankaj Nagalia circumstances the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the appeal of the revenue and demolish the order of the Tribunal wherein plea of the assessee was allowed.

4.

On careful consideration on above submissions we observe that the Hon’ble High Court has allowed appeal of the revenue filed challenging the order of the Tribunal wherein order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act was held as unsustainable. The relevant operative part of the Hon’ble High Court in read as follows :-

“We are of the view that having regard to the fact that the re- assessment was complete before the appeal was taken up, the question, whether the user of the power under section 263 of the Act, in the instant case, was or was not appropriate, became academic, inasmuch as, re-assessment was permitted without any prejudice to the pending appeal.

2.

We accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal.

3.

We have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that against the order of re-assessment, an appeal has been preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), which appeal is pending. The Commisisoner (Appeals) shall decide the said appeal without being influenced by any observation made by this court or any observation made by the Tribunal in the order, which has been set aside by this order.”

5.

In view of above, we have no hesitation to hold that the case is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the order of Hon’ble High Court which have been passed in the similar set of facts and Pankaj Nagalia circumstances for AY 2006-07. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the sole ground of the revenue in this appeal is not allowable and it seems the same. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →