High CourtsDivision Bench(2014) 07 BOM CK 0224

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs HDFC Bank Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Decided on 17 July 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J · B.P. Colabawalla, J
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax Appeal No. 274 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 307 words

B.P. Colabawalla, J.—This Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-2 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) dated 19th August 2011. The Assessment Year in question is 2005-06.

2.

The Appeal before the ITAT arose from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act in pursuance of the directions given by the Appellant in his order dated 23rd March 2009 invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. The said order of the Appellant dated 23rd March 2009 u/s 263, was set aside by the ITAT vide its order dated 15th July 2011 passed in ITA No. 3284/MUN/2009. The ITAT therefore held that the subsequent proceedings originating from the order passed by the Appellant u/s 263 of the Act including the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act had become non-est in the eyes of law. In view thereof, the Appeal filed by the Assessee Bank was allowed by the ITAT.

3.

The earlier order of the ITAT dated 15th July 2011 under which the order passed by the appellant u/s 263 of the Act was quashed and set aside, came up for consideration before us in Income Tax Appeal No. 250 of 2012. In the judgment passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 250 of 2012, we have upheld the order passed by the ITAT dated 15th July 2011 and dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the said judgment passed in Income Tax Act No. 250 of 2012 we are of the view that even in this Appeal, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.