DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI V. T. S. KUMARASAMY, TIRUCHENGODE

ITA 2579/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai against Shri T.S. Kumarasamy concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the deletion of an addition of Rs.237 crores by the CIT(A), which was originally made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) found the reassessment order passed by the AO on 01.05.2023 to be null and void, as it was based on a revisional order from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) that was later quashed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reassessment lacked a legal foundation and thus was without authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107213 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Badrinath vs. Tamilnadu, AIR 2000 SC 3243
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA NANU AMBATT
• Assessee Lawyers: M.V. PRASAD

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u000eा यपीठ, चे\u0013ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0016ी एबी टी. वक\u001b, \u000eा ियक सद\u001d एवं \u0016ी जगदीश, लेखा सद\u001d क े सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2579/Chny/2024 िनधा &रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai. Vs. Shri T.S. Kumarasamy, A2 & A3, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Andipalayam, Namakkal, Tiruchengode – 637 214. [PAN: ADOPK 5292P] (अपीला थ\u001b/Appellant) ()*थ\u001b/Respondent) अपीला थ\u001b की ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms.Swapna Nanu Ambatt, CIT )*थ\u001b की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri M.V. Prasad, CA and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar, IRS (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Department, against the impugned action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-19, (hereinafter in short “CIT(A)\") dated 13.08.2024 for assessment year 2017-18 (hereinafter in short “AY\"). ITA No.2579/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) T.S. Kumarasamy :: 2 :: 2. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.237 crores made by the AO u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the “Act”) by allowing the legal issue raised by the assessee by holding that the reassessment order passed by the AO for AY 2017-18 dated 01.05.2023 was null in the eyes of law, since the reassessment order dated 01.05.2023 was pursuant to the revisional order/263 order of the Ld.PCIT, Central -2, Chennai dated 01.03.2023, which order of the Ld.PCIT was impugned before this Tribunal, and the Tribunal has quashed the revisional order dated 01.03.2023 [in ITA No.314/CHNY/2023] by passing order dated 07.07.2023. Therefore, the reassessment order passed by the AO was without authority of law and hence, null in eyes of law, since foundation on which the AO passed the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 01.05.2023 is absent/non- existing in the eyes of law and therefore, is covered by the legal maxim “sublato Fundmento Credit opus”, meaning, in case a foundation is removed, the super-structure falls. In the case of Badrinath vs. Tamilnadu, AIR 2000 SC 3243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the basis of proceedings is gone, all consequential orders & acts would fall on the ground automatically which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly allowed the legal issue ITA No.2579/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) T.S. Kumarasamy :: 3 :: raised by the assessee and has rightly quashed the assessment order dated 01.05.2023, which action does not require any interference from our side. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 14th February, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक\r) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 14th February, 2025. Vm/- RSR आदेश की )ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीला थ\u001b/Appellant, 2.)*थ\u001b/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Salem 4. िवभा गीय )ितिनिध/DR & 5. गा ड& फा ईल/GF. "