ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAYRAJ PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7357/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2016AY 2007-083 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 order under Section 263 had already been cancelled by the Tribunal. Consequently, any order passed in pursuance of the cancelled Section 263 order was invalid.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of carry forward of loss. The appeal arose from an order passed in pursuance of a Section 263 order by the CIT.

What were the issues?

The validity of an order passed in pursuance of a Section 263 order that has been quashed 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, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sindhu

आदेश ORDER �ी अिमत शु�ला, �या स: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against impugned order dated 22.09.2014, passed by CIT(A)-19, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance of carry forward of loss of Rs.80,97,803/- made by the AO”.

2 �वजयराज �ॉपट�स M/s Vijayraj Properties ITA 7357/Mum/2014 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that present appeal is arising out of order giving effect in pursuance of order passed by Ld. CIT passed under section 263. The Tribunal in the appeal against the said order passed by CIT under section 263 has cancelled / quashed the order of CIT and, therefore, any consequent order passed in pursuance of such order has no legs to stand.

3.

The Ld. DR has also admitted to this fact.

4.

After considering the aforesaid fact and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) too has noted this fact in his impugned order at page 2 and 3 that Tribunal has cancelled the order of CIT under section 263. Once the order under section 263 itself has been quashed, then consequent order passed by the AO in pursuance of such an order under section 263 has no legs to stand and accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th July, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (अशवनी तनेजा) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (ASHWANI TANEJA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 11th July, 2016 ��त/Copy to:- 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) –19, Mumbai. 4) The CIT-18, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →