ACIT,CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI V. M/S GEHNA JEWELLERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3289/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which set aside the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13. The original assessment order was challenged under sections 143(3) and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's earlier decision in ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017, which set aside the order under section 263 dated 04.03.2017, was pivotal in the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the subsequent assessment order. The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal contested the CIT(A)'s decision, but the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123633 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3289/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Cir-4(2)(1), Room No. 642, 6 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 5, Kakad Palance, Turner Road, Bandra, Mumbai-400050. PAN No. AADCG 8796 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. V.C. Shah Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date of pronouncement : 17/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in setting aside order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017 on the basis of tribunals decision in ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017 and thereby allowing assessee's appeal. ii. 'Whether on the the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's appeal by setting aside order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017, without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has preferred appeal against the tri setting aside order dated 24.03.2017 u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961'before Hor'ble Bombay High Court, which is still pending. iii. "The appeallant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary." 2. We have heard dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order with the finding that base order u/s 263 of the Act dated 04.03.2017 has been set aside by the Income Bench in its order dated 22.11.2017. Therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017 is infructuous. 2.1 Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not controvert that all the grounds on which invoked, have already been quashed by the Tribunal (supra). Since, the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT has already been quashed and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue Revenue are accordingly dismissed. M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 31.08.2017 on the basis of tribunals decision in ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017 and thereby allowing assessee's appeal. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's appeal by setting aside order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017, without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has preferred appeal against the tribunals decision setting aside order dated 24.03.2017 u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961'before Hor'ble Bombay High Court, which is still pending. "The appeallant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary." rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order with the finding order u/s 263 of the Act dated 04.03.2017 has been set he Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai ‘G’ Bench in its order dated 22.11.2017. Therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017 is infructuous. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not that all the grounds on which proceedings u/s have already been quashed by the Tribunal (supra). Since, the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT has already been quashed and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 3289/M/2022 2 M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 31.08.2017 on the basis of tribunals decision in ITA No. 3530/MUM/2017 and thereby allowing facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's appeal by setting aside order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017, without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has bunals decision setting aside order dated 24.03.2017 u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961'before Hor'ble Bombay High Court, "The appeallant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order with the finding order u/s 263 of the Act dated 04.03.2017 has been set tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai ‘G’ Bench in its order dated 22.11.2017. Therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 31.08.2017 is infructuous. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not proceedings u/s 263 was have already been quashed by the Tribunal (supra). Since, the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT has already been quashed and therefore, consequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot survive. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the dispute. The grounds raised by the 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 17/02/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/02/2023. Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITA No. 3289/M/2022 3 M/s Gehna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 02/2023. - OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai