Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rohtak v. Tek Singh Saini

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak Versus Tek Singh Saini ITA No. 284 of 2010 (O&M)Date of Decision: 1.9.2010 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated2.3.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “SMC” NewDelhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 3601(Del)/2008, for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing following substantialquestion of law:- “Whether ITAT is right in law in dismissing the appealof the Revenue, when the appeal against the order ofthe Tribunal quashing the order passed u/s 263 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 of the Commissioner ofIncome is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana High Court?” 2.Against the order of assessment, the Commissioner passed an order under Section 263 and directed fresh assessment tobe made. Accordingly, fresh assessment was made. The saidrevisional order under Section 263 was set aside by the Tribunalagainst which appeal of the revenue was dismissed by this Court on9.2.2010 being ITA No. 202 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax,Rohtak v. Sh. Tek Chand Saini). By impugned order Tribunal has setaside the assessment made. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4.In view of the fact that order under Section 263 of the Acthas been held to be invalid, the order passed by the Tribunal is merelyconsequential. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point outany error in the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises.5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 1, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE