KOLET RESORT CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 812/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2024AY 2015-16Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Since the revision order under Section 263 was quashed, the consequent proceedings, including the order passed by the CIT(A), were rendered invalid. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was annulled.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal. The core issue revolved around the validity of a revision order passed under Section 263 and a subsequent assessment order. Both parties agreed that the revision order under Section 263 had been quashed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the revision order passed under Section 263 and its impact on the consequent assessment order. The applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) was also raised but became secondary due to the quashing of the revision order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 144,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, AR
For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 19.11.2024Pronounced: 22.11.2024

(Assessment Year: 2015-16) Kolet Resort Club Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Ward 2(1)(1), Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Ahmedabad Somajiguda, Telangana-500082 PAN : AAACK 8607 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, AR Respondent by: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 06.03.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 30-03-2022 as well as the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 08.03.2021 is invalid ab initio.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the revision order passed by the PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 dated 08-03-2021 itself is invalid ab initio.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the revision order passed by the PCIT Ahmedabad-1 dated 08-03-2021 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of sub section (2) of section 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 since the original order u/s 143(3) of the Act has been passed on 27-12-2017.

6.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 30-03-2022 has no legs to stand.

7.

The Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating ground nos.6, 6.1 and 6.2 taken before him.

8.

The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have annulled the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 30-03-2022.

9.

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made of Rs.19,75,39,092/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act.

10.

The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee company has issued shares at face value of Rs. 10/- per share and not at any premium rate and that therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not attracted.

11.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that shares were not issued by the appellant at premium but issued only at face value of Rs. 10/- during the year under consideration, and that the question of applicability of provisions u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and rule 11UA does not arise.

12.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are inapplicable for transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary company.

13.

The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. General ground Appellant.”

3. At the outset itself, both the parties fairly submitted that the order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 stands quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.10.2024. Since the 263 order itself has been quashed, the consequent proceedings are invalid. Thus, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby annulled.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 22.11.2024

More judgments on Section 263

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →