Ravi Estate (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. Pr. CIT-7, NEW DELHI

ITA 420/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Ravi Estate (P) Ltd., which appealed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)-7, Delhi under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench. The core issue was the absence of a consequential order from the Assessing Officer within the prescribed statutory period following the PCIT's order. Both parties confirmed that no such order had been passed, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal as infructuous but allowed for potential revival if a consequential order is issued in the future.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121393 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 420/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ravi Estate (P) Ltd., C/o SB Garg & Co., 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. PAN: AAACR0254Q Versus Pr. CIT-7, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sachin Kumar, CA & Sh. Achin Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 17.05.2023 Date of pronouncement: 29.05.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: Captioned is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 31.03.2021 passed u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)-7, Delhi pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. ITA No. 420/Del/2021 2 2. We have heard Shri Sachin Kumar, learned authorised representative of the assessee and Ms. Sapna Bhatia, ld. CIT-DR. On perusal of record, it is observed that the impugned order of ld. PCIT was passed on 31.03.2021. As per statutory provisions, the Assessing Officer has to pass the consequential order within a period of one year from the end of the financial year, in which the order u/s. 263 of the Act was passed. In the facts of the present appeal, order u/s. 263 of the Act was passed on 31.03.2021. Therefore, a query was made to the ld. Representatives appearing for the assessee and the Revenue to intimate the Bench regarding the status of consequential order in pursuance to the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. In response, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no such order has been passed by the Assessing Officer. Learned departmental representative was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid contention of the assessee. Thus, considering the fact that no consequential order has been passed in pursuance to the impugned order of the revisionary authority within the period of limitation, the directions of ld. PCIT in the impugned order cannot be implemented. Thus, for all practical purposes, the present appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and ITA No. 420/Del/2021 3 consign it to records. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to seek revival of appeal, in case, at a later point of time, it is found that the Assessing Officer has passed the consequential order in pursuance to the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 3. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2023 *aks/-