Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28/02/2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
2 Bhumiraj Constructions
During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, contended that pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 28/02/2014 (impugned order), the ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 30/09/2015 has given effect to the order and further the Tribunal vide order date 11/12/2014 (ITA No.5195/Mum/ 2012)(A.Y. 2009-10) and (ITA No.3380/Mum/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) set aside the order of the lower authorities for making addition by estimating 10% profit on work in progress for both the years. The Assessing Officer was directed to reframe the assessment in the light of the observation made in the order dated 11/12/2014 (supra). It was contended that the present appeal has become in- fructuous.
2.1. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR, Shri N.P. Singh, though defended the invocation of revisional jurisdictional by the ld. Commissioner but did not controvert the assertion made by the assessee. The assessee has furnished copies of the orders giving effect to the order of the Tribunal and also of the ld. Commissioner.
2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, since, effect has already been given to the direction of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Impugned order) and also of the Tribunal, therefore, the present appeal does not survive and is dismissed as in-fructuous.
3 Bhumiraj Constructions Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as in- fructuous.
This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 20/10/2015.