9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereto, ld. AO carried out the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act making addition in the hands of the assessee. These additions were challenged before ld. CIT(A). As far as revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are concerned, the same were challenged by the assessees before this Tribunal and vide order [ 2020 (2) TMI 1686 - ITAT KOLKATA] the revisionary proceedings were quashed and the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act has been restored. Under these given circumstances of the case since revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act being quashed, the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has become infructuous. Since, all the proceedings carried out in pursuance to the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hon ble ITAT decision has not attained finality. 2. That department craves leave to add, alter, or modify any or all grounds of appeal either before or during course of Appellate Proceedings. 4. Since common issues are involved and facts are identical, we dispose off these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the instant appeals at the instance of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed since the impugned order before ld. CIT(A) i.e. the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act is not operative because the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were quashed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2020 and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified long term assets was made beyond the period of six months from the date on which the long term capital gain was earned on sale of paintings. Hence, assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s.54EC in respect of investment made in specified assets in April, 2014. As the order of the Ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the assessment order u/s. 143(3) was set aside vide order u/s.263 dated 16.03.2018. Consequently, order u/s.143(3) read with section 263 was passed on 26.11.2018 in which AO has denied deduction u/s.54EC on the amount of Rs.50 lakhs. Against this order assessee has filed the present appeal. Assessee had also challenged the order of Ld. Pr.CIT(C)-1, Kolkata, passed u/s263 dated 16.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Puja Agarwal AFTPA3723Q 2014-15 1184/Kol/2018 9. Seema Agarwal ACZPA0987D 2014-15 1185/Kol/2018 In response to notice for hearing, the AR of the assessee has submitted the copy of the ITAT order dated 28.02.2020 and pointed out that the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 28.02.2020 has quashed the order passed u/s.263 by Ld. Pr.CIT(C)-1, Kolkata. Hence, consequential order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) read with sec. 263 has become infructuous. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 263 of the Act are concerned, the same were challenged by the assessees before this Tribunal and vide order dated 28.02.2020, the revisionary proceedings were quashed and the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act has been restored. Under these given circumstances of the case since revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act being quashed, the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has become infructuous. Since, all the proceedings carried out in pursuance to the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have become infructuous, therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the assessee s appeal. We, therefore, fail to find any infirmity in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Thus, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in I.T.A. Nos.: 502, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
