SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by learned CIT(A)-14, Mumbai and they relate to A.Y. 2001-02 & 2002- 03.

The assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for both the years under consideration u/s. 143(3) read with section 245D(4) of the Act were revised by the Principal CIT(A) by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. Hence learned CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals on the legal ground that the impugned assessment orders no longer exists in the eyes of law, since they been set aside by the learned CIT(A) u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly he held that the appeals have become infructuous. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has filed these appeals before us.

The assessee has filed a letter dated 19.7.2016 before us, wherein it has been stated that the assessee has also challenged the revision orders passed by learned CIT u/s. 263 of the Act by filing appeals before the Tribunal and both the appeals have been numbered as & 4353/Mum/2010. The assessee further states that both the appeals have been listed for hearing on 1.9.2016. The assessee further stated that the Assessing Officer has since passed fresh assessment order u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. The assessee has filed appeals before learned CIT(A) challenging the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for both the years and they are pending before the Ld CIT(A). Since appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the revision order, it was stated that dismissal of the appeals filed by the assessee on a legal ground is premature.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Since the assessee has filed the appeals challenging revision order passed by learned CIT(A), we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee. There is no doubt that the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) on the legal ground is legally correct. However, since the assessee has challenged the revision orders by filing appeals before the Tribunal, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee. Since the validity of revision order would depend upon the outcome of the appeals filed before the Tribunal, we are of the view that the disposal of the impugned appeals was premature. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by learned CIT(A) and restore them to his file with the direction to dispose of the appeals after receipt of orders passed by the Tribunal against the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the revision orders.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.