Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana V. M/s Venus Woollen Mills, Ludhiana

ITA 553/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5208 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Assessee Lawyers: DEE
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 553/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ACIT, VS. M/S VENUS WOOLEN MILLS, CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAAFV8368E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAVI SARANGAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. DEEPANSHU JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.04.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-3 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], LUDHIANA. 2 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CI T(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,83,80,210/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IMPUGNED AD DITION IN THIS CASE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILING GIVING EF FECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAID REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 407/CHD/2013 VI DE ORDER DATED 17.9.2014. THE LD. CIT(A), IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, H ELD THAT SINCE THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASHED, THEREF ORE, CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 30.3.2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COU LD NOT SURVIVE AND HE ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE SAME WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUS SION ON MERIT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT SEEMS THAT THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE C ONCERNED OFFICIAL. WHEN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY THE COMMISSIONER, IN PURSUANCE TO WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO NS, HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASHED BY THE ITAT, AND THEREFORE, THE VERY BASIS UPON WHICH THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS CEASED TO EXIST, THEN IN THAT EVENT, THE SUBSEQUENT ORDERS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DE LETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FACT WAS VERY M UCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONCERNED OFFICIAL WHILE FRAMING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND EVEN IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, A REFERENCE TO SAID ORDE R HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE 3 BUT DESPITE THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFER RED IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. THE SAME IS REQ UIRED TO BE DISMISSED AT THRESHOLD. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.04.2017. SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH APRIL, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR