INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE V. SHRI KAMAL KISHORE MUKATI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BAPULAL MUKATI, INDORE

ITA 377/Ind/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8958 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263; 271(1)(c); 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITANo.376 & 377/Ind/2023 Kamal Kishor Mukati Page 3 of 4 erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, Ld. Pr.CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and was thus not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Thus, grounds of appeal raised in five appeal in ITA Nos. 870 to 874/Ind/2019 also stands allowed. 34. Thus, all the grounds raised in the instant appeals are allowed, impugned order u/s 263 of the Act are hereby quashed and the respective assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are restored. Considering the facts of the case as narrated above, the appellant's appeal is allowed as per the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Indore. The AO is directed to delete the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 24.09.2019. 4. Ld. DR has not disputed that the revision order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 has been quashed by this Tribunal. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case when the revision order has been quashed by this Tribunal then the order passed by the AO in pursuant to the revision order would not survive. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue the same is upheld. 5. In the penalty appeal the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- invoked on 6/2 / 2020 u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.” 6. We have heard Ld. DR as well as Ld. AR and considered relevant material on record. Since the addition has been deleted in the quantum appeal therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the ITANo.376 & 377/Ind/2023 Kamal Kishor Mukati Page 4 of 4 Act would not survive. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty when the addition in quantum appeal already deleted. 7. In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing on 31.01.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore,_ 31.01.2024 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore