TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT SP RG 1, MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the orders dt.5.5.10 and 7.10.2010 of the CIT(A)-VI, Mumbai the Assessing Officer(AO)has filed the present appeals.The assessee has challenged the order of CIT-2, dated 6.7.2010,passed u/s.263 of the Act.As all the appeals are related with the similar issue,so for sake of convenience we are adjudicating all the three appeals by a single common order. ITA/9096/Mum/2010(AY92-93): 2.The assessee had filed its return of income on 30.12.92 declaring income of Rs.1, 15, 56, 340/-.Later on a revised return of income was filed on 31.3.94.The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.1995 determining the income of the assessee at 40.44 crores.The matter travelled up to the Tribunal and vide its order dt.8.12.2006 it decided some grounds in favour of the assessee and restored back certain issues to the file of the AO.The AO gave effect to the order of the Tribunal.Vide his order dt.12.2.2007,CIT- 2,Mumbai,invoking the provisions of section 263,directed the AO to pass fresh order with regard to double tax relief admissible to the assessee.The assessee , vide its letter date 12.10.2009 and 20.10.09 made submissions before the AO in that regard .However, the AO vide its order dt.16.11.09 withdrew the DIT relief allowed to the assessee amounting to Rs.1.97 crores. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA),who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed the AO to allow double taxation relief in respect of tax paid on foreign dividend by the assessee. 4.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.The Departmental Representative(AR)stated that the Tribunal vide its order dated 4.2.2015(ITA/3462-65/Mum/2009-AY.s.1992-93,1993-94 & 1995-96)

9096 & 97 Tata Sons had quashed the orders passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act, that the appeal filed by the AO would not survive. We have perused the material on record.We find that the Tribunal had quashed the revisionary orders of the CIT for the year under consideration.In these circumstances,we are of the opinion appeal filed by the AO has to be dismissed.

ITA/9097/Mum/2010-(93-94): 5.Facts and circumstances for the year under appeal are similar to the earlier year.Therefore, following the order for AY 92-93 we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO.

ITA/4307/Mum/2011 (AY 93-94) Assesse’s Appeal: 6.As stated earlier,the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT-2 dated 6.7.2010 passed u/s. 263 of the Act.As per the CIT the AO had given effect to the revisionary order of CIT on 16.11.2009,that while doing so,he had allowed deduction u/s. 80HHE of Rs.55.39 lacs.As per the CIT the AO had not computed the deduction as per the direction of the CIT.He held that the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He set aside the order of the AO dated 16.11.2009 and directed him to re-do the assessment. 7.During the course of hearing before us the AR contented that the original order of the CIT, passed u/s. 263, had been reversed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 4.2.2015(supra), that the second order of the CIT dated 6.7.2010 would not survive. The DR stated that matter could be decided on merits. 8.We have heard the rival submissions.We find that the CIT had invoked the provisions of section 263 with regard to order passed by the AO in pursuance of the directions given by CIT u/s. 263 of the Act for the first time.As the original order has been quashed by the Tribunal,so,the subsequent order would stand quashed automatically.Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.