ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. JVR RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 579/HYD/2024Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 October 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that once the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed, any consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer based on it would not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order with a delay of 27 days, which was condoned. The assessee argued that the appeal was unsustainable as it was filed against a consequential order that was based on a PCIT order which had been quashed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer survives if the order under Section 263, on which it was based, has been quashed by the Tribunal.

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, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Hearing: 30/09/2024

Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 04/03/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2012-13.

2.

There is a delay of 27 days in filing of the appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a condonation petition stating that the delay is due to retrieving of the relevant records for the A.Y 2012-13 and most of the officials were on election duties.

1.

Page 1 of 3 After considering the condonation petition, the delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is unsustainable in law, because the Revenue has filed appeal against the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, but same has been quashed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed.

4.

The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that although the Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, but fact remains that the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and further appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court and since the appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal filed by the Revenue needs to be adjudicated.

5.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by considering the order of the Tribunal in dated 31/01/2023 where the Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act,

1.

Page 2 of 3 1961. Once the order has been passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 does not exist, then any consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuant to the directions of the learned PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, does not survive under the law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the CIT (A) to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the order of the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →