Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Cicle, V. Dr R.S.Sangwan Prop,

ITA 492/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86181 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 263; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 492/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ACIT, VS. DR. R.S. SANGWAN PROP. SIRSA M/S SANGWAN NURSING HOME SANGWAN CHOWK SIRSA PAN NO.ACTPS5639L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M.R. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 02/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/02/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 20.02.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ROHTAK 2. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT AND CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE KEPT THE MATTER PENDING AS FAR AS TECHNICAL ASPECT OF CASE IS CONCERNED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORD ER U/S 263 PASSED BY THE CIT IS INVALID ON TECHNICAL GROUND AND NOT DISC USSING MERITS OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT IN CAE THE DEPARTMENT GETS FAVOURABLE ORDER FROM THE HONB LE HIGH COURT, THE CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT IN T HIS CASE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 2 63. LATER ON ASSESSEE 2 CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IN ITA N O. 458/CHD/2011 (COPY OF ORDER FILED ON RECORD). LATER ON AGAINST THE ASSESS MENT PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALREAD Y QUASHED THE REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 THEREFORE FRESH ASSE SSMENT IS NOT VALID. 4. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CANCELLED THE REVISIONARY ORDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 THEREFORE THE FRESH ASSESSMENT WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE INVALID BY LD.CIT(A) 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y WE FIND THAT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 458/CHD/2011 AND THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTL Y HELD THE ASSESSMENT TO BE INVALID. THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG IN HER OR DER AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/02/2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 06/02/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR