Court : Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for appellant has submitted that appeal was admitted. Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for respondent/assessee. paper book does not appear to have been filed with department. Be that as it may, we have borrowed paper book of Mr. Sinha from which it appears that following question was admitted: Whether on facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in law in holding that assessment under section 143(3)/263 are infructuous since order under section 263 passed by C.I.T.Central-I was earlier quashed by I.T.A.T. in I.T.A.Nos.734 and 735 when said order under section 263 is based on ratio of case of Jorehat Group Ltd.(226ITR 622) ? Mr. Sinha did not dispute that exercise under section 143(3) pursuant to order passed under section 263 can have no further life once order section 263 is itself vacated by higher forum. This is what happened in this case according to question framed. Mr. Sinha has not also disputed that order under section 263 was set aside by order dated 11th October, 2002. earlier order under section 143(3)/263 was passed on 5th February, 2002. Since order under section 263 was subsequently knocked out by order dated 11th October, 2002 order dated 5th February, 2002 can no longer have any force. Therefore, question is answered in negative and against revenue. appeal is, therefore, dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax-Central-I v. A.F.T. Industries Ltd