9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 434 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Business loss on currency swap allowed by CIT - HELD THAT - DR has fairly agreed that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable, because the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted additions made by the Ld. AO, on the basis of 263 order passed by the Ld.PCIT, but the u/s 263 order passed by the Ld.PCIT has been set aside by the ITAT. Once, revisional order passed by the Ld.PCIT has been set aside by the ITAT, then any consequential order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, no longer survives. We find that in M/S JBF INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS PCIT-4, MUMBAI 2018 (11) TMI 866 - ITAT MUMBAI as set aside order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Further, once order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, has been set aside, then the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO pursuant to directions of the Ld.PCIT, u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, no longer survives. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the Ld. AO. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss appeal filed by the revenue.
Issues Involved:
Appeals filed by the revenue against orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai for Asst. Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Analysis: 1. The appeals were heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order due to identical facts and common issues for both assessment years. The revenue raised common grounds of appeal for both years, primarily challenging the allowance of business loss on currency swap by the Ld. CIT(A) and the failure to consider specific judgments. The revenue also sought leave to amend or add grounds if necessary. 2. The brief facts of the case involved the assessee company engaged in manufacturing and trading, filing returns, draft assessment orders, objections before DRP-1, final assessment orders, and subsequent revisional jurisdiction invoked by PCIT-4, Mumbai. The PCIT set aside the assessment order, leading to challenges by the assessee before ITAT, Mumbai 'F' Bench, which set aside the PCIT's order and restored the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO then passed another order determining total income, which was challenged by the assessee before the first appellate authority, Ld.CIT(A), who deleted the additions made by the Ld. AO based on the PCIT's directions under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. During the hearing, both parties agreed that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the ITAT had set aside the PCIT's revisional order under section 263 of the Act. Consequently, any consequential order passed by the Ld. AO based on the PCIT's directions no longer survived. The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Ld. AO, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. 4. In a separate appeal for AY 2012-13, the issues and facts mirrored those of AY 2011-12. The ITAT applied the same reasoning and findings from the previous appeal, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 as well. 5. The judgment pronounced on 20/05/2020 dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue for both AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 based on the findings and conclusions outlined in the detailed analysis for each issue involved.
|
