1 itxal-930-08 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.930 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Harpalsingh Sabharwal ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Satendra Pandey i/b. K. Gopal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the block assessment order passed by the assessing officer on 8/4/2004 on the ground that the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) has been quashed by the ITAT, is the question raised in this appeal. 2. In the present case, block assessment for the period from 4/1/1988 to 21-12-1998 was originally finalised on 16/2/2001 by determining the undisclosed income for the block period at Rs.50,000/-. 2 itxal-930-08 Thereafter, the CIT invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and by an order dated 26/3/2003 set aside the block assessment order and directed the assessing officer to reframe the block assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, fresh block assessment order was passed on 8/4/2004. Challenging the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) by his order dated 30/10/2004 quashed the block assessment order dated 8/4/2004 on the ground that the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act has been quashed by the ITAT. Further appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the ITAT. Hence the revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ITAT quashing the order of CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act being Income Tax Appeal No.903 of 2004 has been dismissed by this Court on 9/8/2011. Once the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act stands quashed and set aside, fresh block assessment order passed by the assessing officer in implementation of the order of CIT under Section 263 of the Act would not survive. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)