Cactus Dealcom (P) Ltd, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

ITA 249/KOL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4269 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Įी संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.249/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2008-09 Cactus Dealcom Pvt. Ltd..............................................................................Appellant C-17, 3 rd Floor, 309, Guru Nanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092. [PAN: AADCC2178F] vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata......................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 07, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : September 22, 2022 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय ɮवारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the alleged revision order Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice, therefore, we proceed to decide the present appeal ex parte of the assessee after going through the records and after hearing the ld. DR. 3. The assessee, inter alia, has taken the ground that no such order passed u/s 263 of the Act was ever served upon the assessee and further that, any such order passed u/s 263 is not available in the records of the Department as per information derived by the assessee by moving an application under Right to Information Act. However, the assessee has placed on record the copy of the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. I.T.A No.249/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2008-09 Cactus Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 2 4. In view of above pleadings taken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal, the ld. DR was asked to produce on record the alleged revision order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 263 of the Act. However today, the ld. DR has placed on file, the letter of ITO, Ward- 1(1), Kolkata dated 05.09.2022, the contents of which are reproduced as under: “3. The undersigned has personally requested the person dealing with 263 matter and she search the names of the case all the register kept with PCIT-1, Kolkata office from 2015-16 to 2020-21. But the details of the order u/s 263 was not found. The dealing person stated that the date of order is required for confirm the case, whether it was passed or not.” A perusal of the above letter reveals that there is no revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act in the records of the Department. Even there is no entry/reference passed in any of the record register kept with the PCIT-1, Kolkata’s office from 2015-16 to 2020-21. Even the ld. DR has stated at Bar that he has also himself checked the assessment records, and there is no mention in the record/register of any such order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Even in the copy of the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, there is no mention of any date or number of any such revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Under the circumstances, since there is neither any copy of any order passed u/s 263 by the CIT available in the records of the Department, nor even there is any reference or entry in any of the record/register kept with the Department either in the office of the PCIT, Kolkata or in the office of the concerned Assessing Officer, therefore, we are left with no alternative than to assume that no such revision order u/s 263 of the Act has ever been passed. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with section 263 is treated as non-est being without any jurisdiction and without any directions by the CIT(A). In view of this, since as per the records of the Department, there is no such impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act in existence in the records of the Department, therefore no such appeal lies against the said non-existent order. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being not maintainable, however, with the observations that the consequent assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 263 dated 28.03.2014 I.T.A No.249/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2008-09 Cactus Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 3 being void and non-est and will not have any force of law. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Kolkata, the 22 nd September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉÈटर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग[ /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सदèय /Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय /Judicial Member Dated: 22.09.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Cactus Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches