ITA Nos. 3502 to 3504/MUM/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appeals by the Revenue were directed against three separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The common issue in dispute was whether the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were sustainable in law. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had previously quashed the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, and the Revenue argued that the consequent assessment orders could not survive. The Revenue also contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in assuming jurisdiction to ask the Assessing Officer to make a de novo examination.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer are sustainable in law after the quashing of the revision order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could legally assume jurisdiction to ask the Assessing Officer to make a de novo examination.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Ten Construction (India) Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6, Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Make My Trip (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-16(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• JMJ Ganpatiji Maharaja Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT-Central Circle-2(2)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2012-13 & 2015-16Dismissed

• ITA Nos. 5727-5730 & CO 239-242/Del/2025

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22Dismissed

• M/s. Inland Teevra Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'B' Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2020-21Dismissed

• Nishan Singh vs. ITO Ward – 1

  Chandigarh bench