Itl/68/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Sas Developers And Engineers

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2010. --The Commissioner of IncometaxI ..Vrs.. M/s. SAS Developers & Engineers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ( Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C. J. Thakar, Advocate for the respondent-sole.) --00-- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P. D. KODE, J J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2011. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. J. Thakar, learned Counsel for the respondent-sole/ Assessee. 02)The relevant assessment year for the present matter is of year 2004-2005. 03)It is apparent, that on 30[th] March, 2006, the Assessment Officer has passed fresh assessment orders in pursuance of directions of CIT issued under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and quantified income returned at Rs. 29,54,983/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Three Only). Thereafter, he has issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which came to be served on 17/08/2006 and re-opened the assessment. This re- opening formed the subject matter of the order passed dated 30/03/2006, by which the returned income was quantified at Rs. 49,03,259/-(Rs. Forty nine Lacs Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine only). 04)The order dated 30/03/2006 formed the subject matter of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and CIT has decided this proceeding on 27/12/2007 and directed the A.O. to pass fresh orders. Those orders have been passed by the A.O. on 18/12/2008 and the A.O. has again quantified the income at Rs. 49,03,259/- (Rs. Forty nine Lacs Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine only). The assessee, then questioned this order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in Income Tax Appeal No. 166/N/2008. The I.T.A.T has found that the order dated 30[th] March, 2006 had ceased to be in existence because of re-opening by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. These findings are questioned before this Court in proceeding filed by the Department. 05) Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the appellant contends, that the order passed after re-opening by the Assessment Officer has been independently questioned by the assesee and that Appeal is now pending before the I.T.A.T.. He, therefore, states that the present dispute also be remanded back to the I.T.A.T for its consideration with it, in accordance with law. 06)Mr. Thakar, learned Counsel for the respondent-sole, points out that as the order dated 30[th] March, 2006, is Deshmukh found to be not in existence, proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in relation to thereto, is rightly said to be void and, therefore, the I.T.A.T has rightly interfered. 07)After hearing respective Counsel, we find substance in the contention of Mr. Thakar, learned Counsel for the respondent. The proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, are rendered void and view taken by the I.T.A.T., therefore, cannot be said to be perverse. There is no jurisdictional error and no substantial question of law, therefore, arises. Hence, Income Tax Appeal stands dismissed. JUDGEJUDGE