TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT admits appeals despite delay, CIT (A) orders set aside, Section 263 proceedings not sustainable</h1> <h3>L. Preeta Priyadarshini, Sunita Prasad, M. Surendranath, S. Satyanarayana, Mahita Prasad Caddel, Syed Rafiuddin, Indrani Prasad, Loraine Reena Peterson Versus DCIT, Central Circle (3), Hyderabad</h3> L. Preeta Priyadarshini, Sunita Prasad, M. Surendranath, S. Satyanarayana, Mahita Prasad Caddel, Syed Rafiuddin, Indrani Prasad, Loraine Reena Peterson ... Issues:Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay, Jurisdiction of CIT (A) under Section 263, Sustainability of Section 263 proceedings, Revival of original assessment under Section 143(3), Setting aside CIT (A) orders, Restoration of appeals for further adjudication.Delay in filing appeals & Condonation of delay:The assessees filed appeals against the CIT (A) orders dated 13.06.2014 after a delay of 471 days, attributing it to misplaced orders and jurisdiction transfer. The ITAT condoned the delay, considering the reasons provided and the submission through affidavit. The appeals were admitted in the interest of justice.Jurisdiction of CIT (A) under Section 263:The CIT (A) set aside the assessment order under Section 263, instructing a re-examination of capital gains issues. The CIT (A) believed that until the appeal is decided, the administrative CIT can review all assessment issues. As no appellate order was passed, the entire assessment was subject to review, leading to the dismissal of appeals by the assessees.Sustainability of Section 263 proceedings:The ITAT referred to a previous case where it held that Section 263 proceedings initiated by the CIT were not sustainable. This decision was based on similar circumstances and observations made by the Assessing Officers in other cases. Following this precedent, the ITAT concluded that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were not sustainable.Revival of original assessment under Section 143(3):Given the ITAT's decision that Section 263 proceedings were not sustainable, the original assessment under Section 143(3) was automatically revived. Consequently, the appeals against the Section 143(3) order before the CIT (A) were also revived, leading to the setting aside of the CIT (A) orders for further adjudication.Restoration of appeals for further adjudication:The ITAT set aside all CIT (A) orders and restored the appeals to the CIT (A) for further adjudication, following the decision that Section 263 proceedings were not sustainable. This decision applied to all appeals before the ITAT, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues of delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, the jurisdiction of CIT (A) under Section 263, the sustainability of Section 263 proceedings, the revival of the original assessment under Section 143(3), the setting aside of CIT (A) orders, and the restoration of appeals for further adjudication.
TaxTMI 