Reopening post facto order of CIT(A) - Doctrine of merger

Facts:

Assessee's case was completed under Section 143(3) after a full scrutiny assessment. Appeal on the scrutiny verdict was also passed by the CIT(A). Subsequently the PCIT chose to reopen the case citing that capital gains stood excluded while MAT computation thus the order of AO was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Plea of the assessee was vide doctrine of merger the order of the CIT(A) became the final order accordingly the order under Section 143(3) itself did not exist/subsist and accordingly the reopening was incorrect. On appeal -

Held in favour of the assessee that the reopening by PCIT was incorrect due to doctrine of merger. The order of the CIT(A) completed the assessment after which revision was incorrect by PCIT.

Applied:

Oil India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1982) 138 ITR 836 (Cal) : 1982 TaxPub(DT) 0739 (Cal-HC)

CIT v. Saraf Bandhu Private Limited (1995) 216 ITR 833 (Bom) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0114 (Bom-HC)

CIT v. P. Muncherji& Co. (1987) 167 ITR 671 (Bom.) : 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1479 (Bom-HC)

Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 184 ITR 599 (Bom.) : 1990 TaxPub(DT) 1073 (Bom-HC)

CIT v. International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 580 (Bom.) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0556 (Bom-HC)

Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Dy. CST (1981) 48 STC 248 (SC)

Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (1991) 80 STC 42 (Bom.).

Case: Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 1840 (Jaipur B Bench)