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

The Revenue has filed this application seeking condonation of delay of 860 days in re-filing the present appeal.

A bare perusal of the application indicates that the only ground for Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

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.

The application is, accordingly, dismissed. ITA 525/2024

Since the Revenue’s application for condonation of delay in re-filing

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

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.

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).

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.

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