Sunny Nagpal, Saharanpur V. Pr.CIT , Muzaffarnagar

ITA 3791/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1032 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3791/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Sunny Nagpal S/o Sh. Ramesh Nagpal Mohalla- Jaffar Nawaz Pul Subji Mandi Dist:-Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh Pin-247 001 PAN-ADVPN 2094D Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (“CIT-DR” for short) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar [“Ld. Pr. CIT”, for short], dated 27/03/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: ITA No.3791/Del/2018 Sunny Nagpal vs. Pr. CIT Page 2 of 5 “1. The order under section 263 made by the Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law having been made without carrying out any inquiry or verification of information. 2. The Notice issued and order made under section 263 by Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law and on facts since the order of the Ld. DCIT under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The order under section 263 made by the Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law being cryptic, self contradictory, unreasonable and totally based on conjectures, surmises and wrong facts. 4. The order under section 263 made by the Ld. Pr. CIT is bad in Law having not fully considered the submissions of the appellants. 5. The order under section 263 has been made by the Ld. Pr. CIT without proper opportunity of being heard being afforded to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” (B) In this case, original assessment order dated 29/03/2016 was passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, wherein the assessee’s income at Rs.1,54,87,279/- (rounded off to Rs.1,54,87,280/-) as against the returned income of Rs.23,78,030/-. The additions made by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid assessment order dated 29/03/2016 were deleted by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar vide appellate order dated 20/02/2017. Separately, the Ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar passed revision order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, dated 27/03/2018, setting aside the ITA No.3791/Del/2018 Sunny Nagpal vs. Pr. CIT Page 3 of 5 aforesaid assessment order dated 29/03/2016, and directing the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The present appeal before us was filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned revision order dated 27/03/2018 of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar. In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a letter dated 13/04/2012 of the Assessing Officer was filed from the side of the Revenue, relevant portion of which is reproduced as below: “In this connection it is submitted that as per information available on record, assessment u/s 143(3)/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2013-14 was completed on 30/12/2018 at returned income i.e. Rs.23,78,030/- resulting no further demand. As no addition was made so no appeal was filed by the assessee against order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 30/12/2018 passed by the then A.O. Copy of assessment order and demand notice are being enclosed with the letter. Submitted for kind perusal.” (B.1) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we have heard the Ld. CIT-DR for Revenue. He drew our attention to the aforesaid latter dated 13/04/2022 of the Assessing Officer, and submitted that the fresh assessment order dated 30/12/2018 has been passed by the Assessing Officer in ITA No.3791/Del/2018 Sunny Nagpal vs. Pr. CIT Page 4 of 5 consequence of the directions contained in the impugned revision order dated 27/03/2018 of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar. He further drew our attention to the fact that the returned income of the assessee has been accepted in the aforesaid fresh assessment order dated 30/12/2018 without making any addition of the returned income and without raising any further demand. Therefore, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted, the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has become infructuous. (B.2) As mentioned earlier, the appellant assessee was represented by none at the time of hearing before us. (B.2.1) We have heard the Ld. CIT-DR for Revenue. We have perused the materials on record. We find that in the fresh assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in consequence of impugned revision order dated 27/03/2018 of Ld. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar; the returned income of the assessee has been accepted, without making any addition to the returned income, and without raising any further demand. Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission of the Ld. CIT-DR that the present appeal ITA No.3791/Del/2018 Sunny Nagpal vs. Pr. CIT Page 5 of 5 before us has become infructuous. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal being infructuous. (D) In the result, for statistical purposes this appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed. This order was already pronounced orally on 1st August, 2022 in Open Court, in the presence of Ld. CIT-DR for Revenue. Now, this written order in writing is signed today on 02/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:02/08/2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW, DELHI