THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. ANIL BHALLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 525 / 2024HC Delhi16 October 20244 pages
For Petitioner: RUCHIR BHATIA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, primarily due to an inordinate delay in re-filing and also on merits. The court found the issue covered by previous judgments, including Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order concerning AY 2007-08. The ITAT had upheld the deletion of an addition made under Section 68, following a search and subsequent assessment under Section 153A.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition under Section 68 can be sustained in a Section 153A assessment when no incriminating material was found during the search. Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA 525/2024 Page 1 of 4

$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 16.10.2024

+ ITA 525/2024

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Sholo Chandra, Adovocates

versus

ANIL BHALLA

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravi Pratap Mall and Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocates

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 60928/2024 (condonation of delay in re-filing)

1.

The Revenue has filed this application seeking condonation of delay of 860 days in re-filing the present appeal. 2. A bare perusal of the application indicates that the only ground for Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

ITA 525/2024 Page 2 of 4

delay in re-filing is that there were a large number of appeals, which were filed between the period March, 2020 to March, 2022. And, the said appeals could not have been pursued on account of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. It is clear that there is an inordinate delay of 880 days in re-filing the appeal. We do not find that there are sufficient grounds to justify such an inordinate delay. 4. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. ITA 525/2024 5. Since the Revenue’s application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been rejected, it is not necessary to consider the Revenue’s appeal on merits. Notwithstanding the same, we have briefly examined the Revenue’s appeal on merits as well. 6. The Revenue seeks to appeal the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the learned ITAT) in ITA No. 2113/Del/2017 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2007-08. 7. The assessee had filed its return of income for the AY 2007-08 on 13.09.2007. 8. Mr. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the said return was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order dated 31.08.2009 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereafter the Act). Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

ITA 525/2024 Page 3 of 4

9.

A search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 16.01.2013. Pursuant to the notice received under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee had filed its return of income on 07.10.2014. Pursuant to the said return, the Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) framed an assessment order making an addition of ₹8,46,11,456/- under Section 68 of the Act treating certain balances, as available in the books of accounts, as unexplained. 10. The assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter learned CIT(A)] assailing the said addition. The said appeal was allowed and the addition made by the AO was deleted on the ground that since no incriminating material was found during the search conducted, the re-assessment could not be sustained. The learned CIT(A) had relied on the earlier decision of Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla: (2016) 380 ITR 573. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Revenue had preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT, however, the learned ITAT had found no fault with the decision of learned CIT(A). 11. Concededly, the said issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (supra) which has been recently cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.:

(2024) 2 SCC OnLine 433. 12. Plainly, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

ITA 525/2024 Page 4 of 4

13.

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 16, 2024 zp

Click here to check corrigendum, if any Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →