IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jaideep Halwasiya…...………..……..…………………....Appellant

3^rd Floor, P-34, India Exhange Place, Kol-1.

[PAN: AAWPH1706L]

vs.

PCIT (Central), Kol-2….…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by:

Shri S. K. Tulsian, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : July 30, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the revisionary order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Kolkata, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 13.03.2025, for A.Y.2018-19, revising the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3)

of the Act dated 30.03.2023.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the instant case originally completed under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) on 30.03.2023, determining the total income of the assessee after certain additions. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT invoked his revisionary powers under Section 263 and passed an order dated 13.03.2025, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary verification and make a fresh assessment on certain issues, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. During the course of revision proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the Ld. PCIT that the very assessment order dated 30.03.2023 (sought to be revised) had already been quashed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 30.08.2024, holding that the proceedings under Section 153C were bad in law, as there was no incriminating material found during search satisfying the jurisdictional requirement under Section 153C. This fact was communicated to the PCIT through letter dated 03.12.2024, well before the passing of the revision order. However, the PCIT proceeded with the revision and passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2025, as if the assessment order still subsisted.

3. At time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order dated 30.03.2023 stood annulled by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30.08.2024. Since the foundation order was no longer in existence, Section 263 could not be invoked and the revision of a non-existent order is without jurisdiction and hence, the impugned revisionary order is bad in law. The Ld AR reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Aarti Rai vs. DCIT [2024] 115 ITR (Trib.) (Kol), where it was held that once the original assessment order is set aside, the very basis of revision vanishes.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the fact that the assessment order dated 30.03.2023 had been quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.08.2024, prior to the passing of revisionary order dated 13.03.2025 u/s 263 of the Act.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials on record. The key issue is whether a revision under Section 263 can be validly exercised in respect of an assessment order that stood annulled before the date of revision. We find that the assessment order dated 30.03.2023, passed under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3), was specifically quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

30.08.2024, on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements under Section 153C were not fulfilled, i.e., there was no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee. This fact was communicated to the Ld. PCIT, yet was not considered in the impugned 263 order. It is settled law that once the assessment order has been set aside or annulled, there remains no effective order to revise under Section 263. The jurisdiction under Section 263 can only be invoked if there is an existing valid assessment order on record. In this regard, we find strength in