Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Venus Woollen Mills, Ludhiana on 12 April, 2017
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 553/Chd/2016
Assessment Year: 2008-09
The ACIT, Vs. M/s Venus Woolen Mills,
Circle-6, Ludhiana
Ludhiana
PAN No. AAAFV8368E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal
Respondent By : Sh. Deepanshu Jain
Date of hearing : 12.04.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 29.02.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], Ludhiana.
2
2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,83,80,210/- made by the Assessing officer on account of enhancement of the Gross Profit rate.
3. The brief facts of the case are that impugned addition in this case was made by the Assessing officer whiling giving effect to the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. However, the said revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 407/Chd/2013 vide order dated 17.9.2014. The Ld. CIT(A), in view of the above, held that since the order u/s 263 of the Act has already been quashed, therefore, consequential order dated 30.3.2013 passed by the Assessing officer could not survive and he accordingly quashed the same without further discussion on merit.
4. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has come in appeal before us. It seems that this appeal has been filed on behalf of the Department without application of mind by the concerned official. When the order passed u/s 263 by the Commissioner, in pursuance to which the Assessing officer had made the impugned additions, has already been quashed by the ITAT, and therefore, the very basis upon which the subsequent order was passed by the Assessing officer has ceased to exist, then in that event, the subsequent orders of the Assessing officer has no legs to stand. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore, rightly deleted the addition so made by the Assessing officer. This fact was very much in the knowledge of the concerned official while framing the grounds of appeal and even in ground No.2 of the appeal, a reference to said order has already been made 3 but despite that the present appeal has been preferred in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The same is required to be dismissed at threshold. We order accordingly.
5. In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.04.2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 12 t h April, 2017 Rkk Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR