, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , ! . '# . ) [BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM] $ $ $ $ / I.T.A NO. 176/KOL/2004 %& '( %& '( %& '( %& '(/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 M/S. LARENCE TRADERS LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R, WD-8(3), KOLKATA (*+ /APPELLANT ) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 20.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.10.2011 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI MANOJ KATARUKA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI D. R. SINDHAL . / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), IX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO 69/CIT(A)-IX/W-8(3)/03-04 DATED 05.12.2003. ASSESSM ENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD- 8(3), KOLKATA U/S. 144/263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 VIDE DATED 27.03. 2003 IN PURSUANCE TO REVISION ORDER OF CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 18.03.2002. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL F ILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT TO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT 18.03.2 002. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF BENCH, OF THE FACT, THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT INITIATED BY CIT-IV, KOLKATA WAS SET ASIDE BY TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2003 IN ITA NO. 1131/KOL/2002. NOW IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPARTMENT H AS GONE IN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND THE MATTER IS PENDING. WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE 263 ORDER I.E. REVISION ORDER PASSED BY CIT HAS QUASHED BY TRIBUNA L, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) IS NULLITY. WE REVERSE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF CIT(A): 5. AS THERE IS NO LEGAL EXISTENCE OF THE PRESENT O RDER DATED 27.03.2003 ANY LONGER THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH THOUGH TECHNICALLY SUCCEED S FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DISMISS ED. THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) THAT ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CER DATED 20.7.2003 THERE IS NO LEGAL EXISTENCE BUT HOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CAN BE DISM ISSED. HENCE, WE AMEND THE ABOVE FINDING BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSEQUENCE TO 2 ITA 936/K/2011 SARDAR JODH SINGH.., A.Y.2006-07 REVISION ORDER PASSED BY CIT, KOLKATA U/S. 263 OF T HE ACT IS QUASHED AS THE REVISION ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ITSELF IS QUASHED BY TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO.1131/KOL/2002 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2003. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T WHERE THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY CIT ITSELF H AS BEEN FOUND TO BE BAD AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO QUE STION OF UPHOLDING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO THE REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE CIT. THUS, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE SETTING ASIDE OF A REV ISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD BE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISIONAL ORDER MUST ALSO FAIL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . '# '#'# '# . ! , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( #! #! #! #!) )) ) DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2011 /0 %12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) . 4 ,5 6 5'7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . *+ / APPELLANT M/S. LARENCE TRADERS LTD., 5, RUSSEL ST REET, (1 ST FLOOR), KOLKATA-71.. 2 ,-*+ / RESPONDENT, ITO, WARD-8(3), KOLKATA. 3 . .% ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. .% / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . >? ,% / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -5 ,/ TRUE COPY, .%@/ BY ORDER, 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .