ASHISH MAHENDRA CHANDIWAL,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JALGAON, JALGAON

and Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1062852443(1), dated 18.03.2024, in in proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA.No.952/PUN./2024 GROUND 1:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL a) The learned 'PCIT Nasik 1' erred in issuing notice U/S 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where Appellant has already opted for Vivad Se Vishwas, 2020 and paid taxes and form 3 i.e., certificate U/S 5(1) if Direct Tax Vivad Se

Vishwas 2020 is issued on 07/02/2021 and form 4 i.e., intimation of payment of taxes is filed by Appellant on 19/02/2021. b) Learned PCIT failed to appreciate and ought to have held that in view of sec. 5 of Vivad Se Vishwas, 2020, he has no revisional powers for the assessment year for Appellant has opted Vivad Se Vishwas, 2020. c) In view of the above Appellant prays the order passed u/s 263 of the Act be held as void ab initio and bad in law.

GROUND II: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE a) The learned PCIT has erred in passing the order under Section 263 of the Act inspite the fact, the Assessment

Proceeding initiated under Section 263 was already dropped by Income Tax Department.

3 ITA.No.952/PUN./2024 b) He failed to appreciate the contention put forth by the appellant on this count has not been even considered in the order passed by him. c) He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that once the Assessment Order in pursuance of Section 263 order has been dropped, no fresh proceeding under Section 263 can be initiated. d) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by 'PCIT, Nasik 1' under Section 263 be set aside and held as void as initio.

GROUND III: GENERAL

The Appellant craves leave to add to amend and / or alter the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal hardly requires our detailed adjudication. This is for the precise reason that learned PCIT had passed his earlier revision order dated 19.03.2021 terming the Assessing Officer’s sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 assessment/re-assessment dated 27.12.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee appears to have preferred his appeal before the tribunal which restored the matter back to the learned PCIT vide order dated 25.08.2022.

4 ITA.No.952/PUN./2024 4. Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact emerging from the case file at page-10 that the assessing authority’s consequential sec.143(3) r.w.s.263 assessment/ order already dropped the same on 24.03.2022 [page-10 in case file]. This being the most clinching aspect of the matter, we are of the considered view that if at all; the learned PCIT had to invoke his revision jurisdiction afresh; the same would hardly include the former round of assessment herein dated 27.12.2019 and therefore, we conclude that his impugned order dated 18.03.2024 once again directing the Assessing Officer to frame a de novo assessment in assessee’s case is not sustainable in law since the taxpayer/appellant has already succeeded in the Assessing Officer’s consequential proceedings. The assessee succeeds in it’s instant sole substantive ground in very terms.

All other pleadings in the assessee’s instant appeal stand rendered academic.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.10.2024.