The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda V. M/s Dharampal Contractor, MANSA

ITA 451/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3727 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.451(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DY. CIT, BATHINDA. PAN:AAFD2575M VS. M/S. DHARAMPAL CONTRACTOR, VILL. DANEWALA, SARDULGARH MANSA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 21/11/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/11/2016 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 09.06.2016 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH STOOD QUASHED BY THE ITAT, CEASED TO SURVIVE. HOWEVER, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AN APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2013. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PRI. CIT, BATHINDA, PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ITA NO.451/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 2 1963 AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFR ESH. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2015. 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 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE O RDER U/S 263. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS RESPECT HAD F ILED A COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 01.06.201 6, PASSED IN ITA NOS.219 & 672/ASR/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 & 2011-12, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE AND HAD QUASHED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNA L. 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 30.10.2015. 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 01.06.2016 PASSED IN ITA NOS.219 & 672/ASR/20 15 FOR ASST. YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12 HAD QUASHED THE ORDERS UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ITA NO.451/ASR/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 3 ACT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DOES NOT SURVIVE AS THE ORDER U/S 263 H AD ALREADY BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY NOTED THIS FACT IN THIS CASE IN HIS ORDER AND AS SUCH AND HAS RIGHTLY ALLO WED THE APPEAL AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(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 UPS ET 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 22/11/20 16. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /PK/ DATED:22/11/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S DHARAMPAL CONTRACTOR 2. THE DY. CIT, BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.