DCIT,Satara Cir., Satara V. Hindustan Feeds Mfg. Co., Satara

ITA 226/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56453 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT KANDAR
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 226/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. APPELLANT SATARA CIR. SATARA VS. HINDUSTAN FEEDS MFG. CO. .. RESPONDENT L-4 ADDL. MIDC, SATARA APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY SI NGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KIRIT KANDAR DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2011 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 16.11.2009, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPO NDENT- ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT WAS A SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE OUR CO-ORDINA TE BENCH AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO 569/PN/08 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDER SECTION 2 263 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL THERE FORE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLE NGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) HAS TO FAIL. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, APPE ARING FOR THE REVENUE, DID NOT DISPUTE THIS FACT-SITUATION. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF OUR CO-ORDINATE BEN CH PASSED IN ASSESSEES CASE (SUPRA) AND FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ASSESSEES SUBM ISSIONS. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, WE CONCUR WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND FIND NO SU BSTANCE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: DATED: 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-III PUNE 4. THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 3 ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE