The Commissioner Of Income Tax1, Room v. M/S.lark Chemicals Ltd., 114, Marine Chambers, 11, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020

k.uday IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1163 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1184 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2013 ... The Commissioner of Income Tax1,Room No.387, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. vs.M/s.Lark Chemicals Ltd.,114, Marine Chambers,11, New Marine Lines,Mumbai 400 020. ...Appellant ...Respondent … Mr.Sureshkumar for the appellant.Ms.Vasanti B. Patel for the respondent. ... CORAM:MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J.DATE :7 AUGUST 2013 P.C.: These appeals by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) challenges the order dated 1 June 2012 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”)relating to assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 2.In all the four appeals the following common question of law has been proposed for our consideration:- “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the order passed U/s.263 of the IT Act by the CIT has been quashed by the Tribunal by setting aside without appreciating the fact that the decision of the ITAT has not been accepted and Revenue had filed appeal u/s 260A against the order of the ITAT dated 31 March 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court.” 3.By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeals as the same arise from proceedings consequent to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. However, the respondent's appeals from the orders passed under Section 263 of the Act were set aside by the Tribunal by order dated 31 March 2011. 4.The grievance of the revenue when these appeals were filed was that the order of the Tribunal dated 31 March 2011 was not accepted by the revenue and appeals were filed to this Court. 5.However, it is pointed out to us that the revenue has not preferred any appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated 31 March 2011, in so far as it relates to the assessment year 2000-01. 6.It is agreed before us that so far as the appeals of the revenue in respect of assessment years 1999-00, 2001-02 and 2002-03 from the order under Section 263 of the Act by CIT are concerned, this Court by order dated 6 August 2013, upheld the orders of the Tribunal dated 31 March 2011 and had dismissed the revenue's appeals. 7.In view of the fact that the impugned orders of the Tribunal flow as a consequence of the order of CIT under Section 263 of the Act, they do not survive as the orders under Section 263 of the Act has been set aside by the Tribunal and upheld by us. 8.Accordingly, all four appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)