ACIT CEN CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. RARE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 941/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2016AY 2008-093 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 held that the Revenue's plea that its appeal against the ITAT's earlier order was pending before the High Court was irrelevant. Since the ITAT's order quashing the revision order still held good, the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessment order was affirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which cancelled the assessment order. The CIT(A) had cancelled the assessment order because the revision order by the CIT, which led to the assessment order, was previously quashed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the assessment order based on a previous ITAT order that quashed the revision order, even though the Revenue had appealed the ITAT order to the High Court.

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, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar
For Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 18/07/2016Pronounced: 22/07/2016

The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 30.09.2014, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2008-09, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.12.2013 under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Ground of appeal:

1. The order of Hon'ble ITAT, relying on which the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee has been challenged by the department before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Hence, the appeal.

3.

The above stated Ground of appeal was explained before us as follows. That assessee assailed the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.12.2013 before the CIT(A). One of the grounds raised was that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.3.2013, in terms of which the Assessing Officer had passed the impugned order, has since been quashed by the Tribunal vide its order in dated 28.8.2014. As a consequence, the CIT(A) held that the impugned assessment order was liable to be cancelled and it was null and void. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.

4. The only plea of the Revenue before us is that order of the Tribunal dated 28.8.2014 (supra) has been challenged by the Department in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The aforesaid plea, in our view, is of no relevance at this stage inasmuch as there is no dispute that the order of Tribunal, which has been relied upon by CIT(A), continues to hold the field, as it has not been altered by any higher authority. Thus, we find no error on the part of CIT(A) in cancelling the impugned assessment order, and the action of CIT(A) is hereby affirmed.

5.

Resultantly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 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 →