"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 506/ASR/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Samra Industrie, C/o. Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd., Near Canal Sadiq Road, Faridkot PAN:AAEFS 5285R Vs. The ACIT, Ferozpur, JAO ITO Ward 3(1), Ferozepur Assessee by Shri Rohit Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 30 / 09 / 2026. ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27.09.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. There is delay of 564 days in filing the appeal. 3. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee explaining the cause of delay, we find that identical reasoning shown by the assessee for belated filing of appeal seeking condonation of delay of 2,246 days was found to be satisfactory by the Coordinate Bench and delay was condoned. Thus, due to parity Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 506/Asr/2025 Asst. Year: 2011-12 of facts, we condone delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the present proceedings arise out of the assessment order passed in consequence of revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. He submitted, while adjudicating assessee's appeal, challenging the order passed under section 263 of the Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), vide order dated 23-7-2026 in ITA No. 583/Asr/2025, has set aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act with a direction to the PCIT-2 to adjudicate the issue afresh after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Learned DR was not in the position to controvert the aforesaid factual position. Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on record, we find that the impugned order of learned First Appellate Authority arises out of an assessment order dated 10-12-2019 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, in pursuance to direction of PCIT vide order dated 25-3-2019 passed under section 263 of the Act. Undisputedly, the said revision order passed under section 263 of the Act was set aside by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23-07-2026 with the direction to learned PCIT to pass a fresh order after providing due and reasonable Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 506/Asr/2025 Asst. Year: 2011-12 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus the order under section 263 of the Act, on the basis of which the impugned order was passed, has lost its existence after being set aside by the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the consequential order passed in pursuance of the said order under section 263 of the Act cannot have independent existence. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of First Appellate Authority as also the assessment order, with the direction to Assessing Officer to await the decision of the revisionary authority in the set-aside proceedings and, if warranted, can pass a fresh assessment order in pursuance to directions of learned PCIT after completion of the pending revisionary proceedings. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2026) Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Dated : 30/09/2026. Aks/- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 506/Asr/2025 Asst. Year: 2011-12 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "