DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI V. M/S ADITYA BIRLA RETAILS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 547/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5531 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA No. 547/Mum/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 547/Mum/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9(1)(1), Mumbai ............................Appellant Vs M/s. Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. ........................Respondent Skyline Icon, 5 th Floor, 86/92, Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059 [PAN: AAACP2678Q] Appearances by Shailja Rai for the appellant Yogesh Thar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : December 27, 2021 Date of pronouncement : December 27, 2021 O R D ER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11, on the following ground:- 1. ‘Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the disallowance u/s. 14A as per the provisions of Section 14A rwr 8D was not correctly made in the original assessment order, thereby the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.’ 2. When this appeal was called out for hearing, Shri Yogesh Thar, learned counsel for the assessee, pointed out that revision order under section 263 of the Act dated 27 th March 2015, as a consequence to which impugned assessment order was framed, has been quashed vide a coordinate bench order dated 18 th September 2019. Learned counsel further invited our attention ITA No. 547/Mum/2020 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 2 to the related orders, referred as such, copies of which have been placed before us at pages 1 to 26 of paper book. In this background, it was submitted that the appeal is infructuous, and may be dismissed as such. 3. Smt. Shailja Rai, learned Commissioner-Departmental Representative, did not dispute the submission of the learned counsel, and fairly accepted that, as the things stand now, the appeal is infructuous and academic. 4. We find that once the foundational revision order itself stands quashed, the correctness of additions, made in assessment order to give effect to the revision order, is wholly academic. The appeal must therefore be dismissed as infructuous. We order so. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 27 th day of December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- Vikas Awasthy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 27 th day of December, 2021 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai