M/s. Kamal Industries , Nohar V. Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Bikaner

ITA 88/JODH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5489 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA R JAIN
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA 88 & 89/Jodh/2018 M/s Kamal Industries Vs Pr.CIT & 1 Anr. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 88/JODH/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/s Kamal Industries, P.K. Kochar & Co. (CA), 521- General Market, Hospital Road, Hanumangarh Town (Raj) Vs. Pr.CIT Bikaner. PAN No.:- AABFK 3320 Q ITA No. 89/JODH/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/s Kalawati Grading Industries, P.K. Kochar & Co. (CA), 521- General Market, Hospital Road, Hanumangarh Town (Raj) Vs. Pr.CIT Bikaner. PAN No.:- AAJFK 2685 E Assessee by Shri P.K. Kochar & shri Jitendra Kochar (CA) Revenue by Smt. Alka R Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 30/09/2021 Date of Pronouncement 28/12/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. PCIT, Bikaner both dated 27/12/2017 passed U/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2 ITA 88 & 89/Jodh/2018 M/s Kamal Industries Vs Pr.CIT & 1 Anr. 2. Since, common issues have been involved in both these appeals, therefore, both are clubbed and heard together and for the sake of convenience, a common order is being passed. 3. For deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 89/Jodh/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 as a lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following ground of appeal: "The Pr.CIT was wrong in the eyes of law as well as on facts by invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the 1.T. Act and by ordering reexamination of entire case which was thoroughly examined and verified by the AO who had passed the assessment order and an appeal was pending before the CIT(Appeals) against the same." 4. As per the facts of the present case, the order of assessment was initially passed U/s 143(3) of the Act on 15/03/2016 thereby making certain additions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. passed U/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the Id. CIT(A). However, in the mean time, the ld. Pr.CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and held that the order passed by the A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the A.O. to pass fresh assessment order. 3 ITA 88 & 89/Jodh/2018 M/s Kamal Industries Vs Pr.CIT & 1 Anr. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Id. Pr.CIT dated 27/12/2017, the assessee preferred the present appeal before us. However, during the pendency of the present appeal, the A.O. passed fresh assessment order U/s 263/143(3) of the Act after examining the issues mentioned in the order U/s 263 of the Act and made NIL addition and ultimately accepting the total income of the assesse as assessed in the assessment order passed on 15/3/2016 U/s 143(3) of the Act. This factual position has not been controverted by the ld. DR. 7. Since after passing the impugned order U/s 263 of the Act dated 27/12/2017, the assessee has filed the present appeal and during the pendency of the present appeal, fresh assessment order in consequence of the order passed U/s 263 of the Act has already been passed by the A.O. on 30/12/2019 U/s 263/143(3) of the Act by making NIL addition thereby accepting total income of the assessee as assessed in the original assessment order passed on 15/3/2016 U/s 143(3) of the Act which shows that initial order of assessment passed U/s 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Hence, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the subsequent order dated 30/12/2019 passed U/s 263/143(3) of the Act, we are of the view that the order dated 27/12/2017 passed U/s 263 of the Act 4 ITA 88 & 89/Jodh/2018 M/s Kamal Industries Vs Pr.CIT & 1 Anr. deserves to be quashed. Since no cause of action has left for maintaining the present appeal after passing of order U/s 263/143(3) of the Act, the present appeal becomes infructuous. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 9. Now we take ITA No. 88/Jodh/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14. Since, the grounds, facts and circumstances of this appeal is identical to the facts and circumstances of the appeal being ITA No. 89/Jodh/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, our finding given in ITA No. 89/Jodh/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also. 10. Finally, both these appeals of the assessees are dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced on 28 th December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. SAINI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28/12/2021 *Ra njan Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5 ITA 88 & 89/Jodh/2018 M/s Kamal Industries Vs Pr.CIT & 1 Anr. 5. The DR 6. Guard File Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench