The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda V. M/s Sutlej Wine Enterprises, Bathinda

ITA 401/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9520 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SH RAHUL DHAWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.401(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN : ABFRS9069B INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. SUTLEJ WINE ENTERPRIS ES, WAD-1(3), BATHINDA. PHUL ROAD, RAMPURA PHUL. DISTT. BHATINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.SH. RAHUL DHAWAN, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 29/09/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 /11/2016 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 19.04.2016 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE I TAT IN ITA NO.220/ASR/2015, DATED 10.03.2016, WHICH HAS NOT BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL HAS BEEN PRE FERRED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. 2. THAT IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OF F. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2013. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PRI. CIT, ITA NO.401/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 2 BATHINDA, PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1963 AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFR ESH, IN VIEW OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO, VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO PASSED ORDER AND ALLOWE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD QUAS HED THE ORDER U/S 263. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS RESP ECT FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 10.03.2016, PASSED IN ITA NO.220/ASR/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT . 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. TH E ASSESSEE, IN THE MEANTIME HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. PRI. CIT, BATHINDA UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE TRI BUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.220/ASR/2015 HAD QUASHED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DOES NOT SUR VIVE AS THE ORDER U/S ITA NO.401/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 3 263 HAD ALREADY BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY NOTED THIS FACT IN THIS CASE IN HIS ORDER AND AS SU CH AND HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR, IS NOT JUSTIFIED, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COUR T STAYING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DR. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WILL PREVAIL UNLESS IT IS UP SET BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /11/2016. SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /SKR/ DATED:18/11/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. SUTLEJ WINE ENTERPRISES, RAMPURA PHUL. 2. THE ITO WARD 1(3), BATHINDA, 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.