PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI vs. M/S NCR VEHICLES PVT LTD

ITA - 725 / 2023HC Delhi08 December 20232 pages

For Petitioner: SHLOK CHANDRA

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the CIT(A) found the difference arose from misreading information and sustained this view. However, the court also observed that the assessee did not produce books of accounts. The court issued notice to the assessee and directed the revenue to provide the record available to the AO and CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee. The dispute involved an addition to taxable income due to a difference between the sales ledger and profit and loss account balances.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of the difference between the sales ledger and profit and loss account was sustainable, and whether the CIT(A) had sufficient material for reconsideration after dismissing the assessee's application under Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 725/2023

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI ..... Appellant

Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar and Ms

Madhavi Shukla, Standing Counsels.

versus

M/S NCR VEHICLES PVT LTD ..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

08.12.2023

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

This is an appeal concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. The central issue which arises for consideration is: Whether the addition amounting to Rs.13,61,47,346/- made to the taxable income of the respondent/assessee, on account of the difference in the balance as found in the sales ledger as against that which was found in the profit and loss account, was sustainable? 4. The CIT(A) via order dated 06.09.2017 has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. 5. Broadly, according to the CIT(A), the difference arose on account of ITA 725/2023

Page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:02:22

misreading of information given in the sales ledger as against that which is provided in the profit and loss account. This view has been sustained by the Tribunal. 6. We may also note that the assessment order notes that the books of accounts were not produced by the respondent/assessee, despite opportunities being given in that regard. 7. Therefore, what needs to be examined is whether the CIT(A), after dismissing the respondent/assessee’s application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, had the relevant material to carry out a reconsideration of the figures. 8. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including email. 9. List the matter on 11.03.2024. 10. Meanwhile, Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue, will place before the court the record that was available both to the AO and the CIT(A). The record will be duly indexed so that it can be easily examined by the court.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J DECEMBER 8, 2023/RY

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 725/2023

Page 2 of 2

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:02:22

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →