2019 (11) TMI 1790 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - amount has been erroneously allowed as agricultural income by the Ld. AO which is exempt from the Act u/s. 10(1) because the Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that the assessee company had departed from the basic agricultural operations and had indulged in production of parent seeds - HELD THAT - We find merit in the submissions of the ld. AR. From the facts of the case it is apparent that the Tribunal 2019 (2) TMI 49 - ITAT HYDERABAD had quashed the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore the order passed by the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act does not survive. Accordingly the Ld. CIT (A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee and restored the order of the ld. AO dated 30/3/2015. In this situation we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence the appeal of the Revenue does not survive.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed by Revenue against CIT(A)'s order, Assessment year 2012-13, Quashing of order passed by Pr. CIT under section 263, Allowance of appeal by CIT(A), Survival of order passed by AO under section 143(3) read with section 263.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2012-13. The main issue raised was regarding the survival of the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, after the Tribunal had quashed the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263. The Ld. Pr. CIT had observed that an amount was erroneously allowed as agricultural income by the Ld. AO, which was exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT set aside the AO's order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO then passed an order rejecting the income as agricultural income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside this order and restored the original order of the AO dated 30/3/2015, as the Tribunal had set aside the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263. The Tribunal found merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR and concluded that the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 does not survive due to the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as it did not survive.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the appeal of the assessee and restore the order of the Ld. AO dated 30/3/2015. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the Tribunal had quashed the order of the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, as the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 did not survive in this situation.