IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 330/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 JHEENDU RAM 30 - A, KALPI ROAD PANKI PARAO, KANPUR V. CIT - 1 KANPUR PAN: AGGPR0515D (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. SWARAN SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. P. K. MISHRA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 11 0 7 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 0 7 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 1 . THAT THE LD. CIT - I, KANPUR E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22/1 / 2010 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 . THAT THE LD. CIT - I, KANPUR ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING ORDER DATED 08/03/2010 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 . THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE D 22/1/2010 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ORDER U/S 263 DATED 08/03/2010 IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND DOCTRINE OF FINALITY. 4 . THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22/1/2010 ISSUED UNDER SECTION PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : 263 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX - 1, KANPUR WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IN SUPPORTABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 DATED 08/03/2010 PASSED BY LD. CIT - I, KANPUR IS VOID AB - INITIO AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5 . THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 WAS ISSUED BY L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KANPUR MERELY ON PROBABILITY, SURMISES, CONJECTURES, WITHOUT HAVING COGENT MATERIAL OR REASON WITH HIM FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS I LLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 6 . THAT THE ORDER U/S 263 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KANPUR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT PROPER JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. 7 . THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 15.09.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE, IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS IN THE EYE OF LAW, NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HENCE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22/1/2010 U/S 263 ISSUED BY LD. CIT - I, KANPUR IS I LLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, IS LIABLE TO QUASHED AND ALSO CONSEQUENT ORDER U/S 263 DATED 08/03/2010 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 8 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPRECIATE, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 HENCE THE CONCLUSIONS UNILATERALLY DRAWN ARE UNFOUNDED, UNJUSTIFIED AND UN WARRANTED. 9 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : ALREADY EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY ISSUE INVOLVED. AFTER BEING SATISFIED ABOUT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, GENUINENESS OF LIABILITIES, AND INCOME DISCLOSED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PASSED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 15.09.2008. BUT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS IGNORED THESE FACTS WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DUE ENQUIRIES WERE NOT MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE AND SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THERE WAS NEITHER INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS NOR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS NOT WRITTEN ELABORATELY, HENCE THE ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS IN THE EYE OF LAW, NOR IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 11 . THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION STATING THEREIN THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(2) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 28.3.2011, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND VIDE ORDER DATED 13.6.2004, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 4 - : LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ANNULLED. 3 . IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LEFT WITH NO GRIEVANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APP EAL HAS BECOME ACADEMIC AND CAN BE DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.7.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JU LY , 2014 JJ: 1107 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )