Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER
PER M. BALAGANESH, AM:
This appeal in for AY 2014-15 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-28, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No.349/19-20/1641 dated 25.02.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2018 by the ld. Assessing Officer, Central Circle 15, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“i. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by relying on the order dated 15.11.2021 of the Hon’ble ITAT in without appreciating that this order of Hon’ble Tribunal has not been accepted by the Department.” ii. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee ignoring the fact that proper enquiry was not conducted by the assessing officer and PCIT had rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, treating the assessment order as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” iii. “On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble Tribunal while passing order dt. 15.11.2021 in ITA No. 2835/Del/2018 erred in not upholding the order dated 31.03.2018 u/s 263 of the Act, 1961 ignoring the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Virbhadra Singh (HUF) vs PCIT[2017] 86 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh) & Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi). “iv. On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal of the assessee on the basis of the order dated 15.11.2021 of Hon’ble ITAT without examining the merits of the addition made by the AO in his order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 27.12.2018.” vi. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that this is an appeal against the giving effect proceedings of the ld. AO pursuant to section 263 order passed by the ld.PCIT. Against the order passed by the ld.PCIT u/s 263, the assessee had preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had quashed the section 263 proceedings of the ld.PCIT in dated 15.11.2021. Once the original proceedings of section 263 order is quashed by this Tribunal, consequential proceedings emanating out of the same would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law. We find that the ld.CIT(A) had taken due cognizance of this fact and had quashed the giving effect proceedings framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 27.12.2018. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.