PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD vs. SHRI KETAN I. SHAH, VAPI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the ITAT had already quashed the revision order under section 263, the consequential assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was invalid. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263. The CIT(A) had quashed the revision order under section 263, stating it was invalid as the ITAT had previously quashed the original section 263 order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 is valid when the underlying revision order under section 263 has been quashed by the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 13/01/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2008- 09, is directed against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 09.07.2019, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO" for short) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 31.08.2018.
Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act stating that the revision order u/s 263 of the I.T Act which is the basis for order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act has been quashed by the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 17.12.2018 and that the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of I.T. Act becomes invalid and viod-ab-initio so the adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee becomes infructuous?”
At the outset, Shri Rajesh M Upadhyay, Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee begins by pointing out that Tribunal in assessee’s own case in dated 17.12.2018 has quashed the order passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. Therefore the consequential order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act becomes infructuous and therefore should be cancelled.
On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee observing as follows:- “3.3.Decision: After considering the submissions of the appellant, it is noticed that the Honourable ITAT, Surat Bench has passed the appellate order vide for A./Y 08-09 on 17.12.2018 and quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2018. The relevant part of the ITAT order is as under. ‘We are of the considered view that the AO had made detailed enquiries and after applying his mind accepted the claim of the assessee, which is also plausible view. Therefore, we find that twin conditions were not satisfied for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, in absence of the same, the Ld. PCIT was not correct in exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the IT Act and cancelling the assessment and accordingly, we quash the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act.’ In view of the above jurisdictional ITAT order, the appeal filed before the undersigned becomes infructuous as the order passed u/s 263 of the Act got quashed by Hon'ble ITAT Surat bench. Hence, the set aside assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act becomes invalid and void-ab-initio. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.36,16,042/- made in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act is not sustainable and hereby deleted.”
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026