Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore V. Sri. H Nagaraja, Bangalore

ITA 1738/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4583 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARAVIND V CHAVAN
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1738 & 1739 / BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), BANGALORE. VS. SHRI H. NAGARAJA, NO. 6 & 7, 5 TH CROSS, CHUNCHUNGHATTA MAIN ROAD, NEW BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, BANGALORE 560 078. PAN: ABMPN7731L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 .0 6 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 6 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE WHICH AR E DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-11, BANGALORE DATED 31 .05.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WHEREAS THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). HE ALSO S UBMITTED A COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR SAME TWO ASSESSMEN T YEARS IN ITA NOS. 613 & 614/BANG/2014 DATED 17.03.2017 AND POINTED OUT TH AT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (A) U/S. 263, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AS PER THIS COMBINED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUN AL HAS HELD THAT CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING THE POWER OF REVISION AND A CCORDINGLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT WERE SET ASIDE. THEREAFTER HE SUBMITTED THA T IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE ITA NOS.1738 & 1739/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 ISSUE INVOLVED IS IN RESPECT OF CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS PER THE DIRECTION OF CIT U/S. 263. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ORDER U/S. 263 IS SET ASIDE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S. 14 3 R.W.S. 263 DOES NOT SURVIVE AND HENCE, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) SHOULD BE C ONFIRMED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FOR T HE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE PARAS 5 AND 6 OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A). THESE PARAS READ AS UNDER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT THE ORD ER U/S 263 PASSED BY THE CIT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONOURABLE ITA T, BANGALORE AND HENCE, THE APPEAL HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE LETTER FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT AS UNDER: 1. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THESE AP PEALS HAVE BEEN FILED CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX KARNATAKA (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 UNDER AN ORDER DATED 28.03.2013. 2. THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THESE ORDERS BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NUMBERED AS ITA.NOS. 613 & 614/BANG/2014. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HEARD THE APPEALS AND FOUND THAT THE JURIS DICTION EXERCISED U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT WAS ERRONEOUS IN R ESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. CONSEQUEN TLY, THE ORDERS DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S. 263 OF THE I T ACT, HAVE BEEN SET-ASIDE. 3. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ORDE R PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE I T ACT, HAVING BEEN SETASIDE THE PRESENT APPEA LS HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.02.20 14 FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL S ALLOWED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE QUASHING OF THE ORIGINAL ORDERS, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT SURVIVE. 4. AS PER THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE DECISION OF CIT (A) IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT U/S. 263 FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE REFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT U/S. 263 OF IT ACT DOES NOT SURVIVE. HENCE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER O F CIT (A). ITA NOS.1738 & 1739/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH JUNE, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.