COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RATTAN MEHTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1241 / 2010HC Delhi27 August 20101 pages
For Petitioner: PL BANSAL
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law. The first question concerns the correctness of the ITAT's deletion of an addition of Rs. 61,46,721/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income under Section 69B of the Act. The second question is whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition while ignoring the provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act, which permits statements made during a search to be used as evidence. The High Court issued notice to the respondent and dispensed with the filing of the paper book. No findings or decisions on the merits of the substantial questions of law were recorded in this order; the order primarily deals with the admission of the appeal and procedural matters. The operative directions were to issue notice and dispense with the paper book.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law. An application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal was filed by the appellant and was allowed by the High Court. The respondent, Rattan Mehta, was not represented. The amount in dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 61,46,721/- made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 61,46,721/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income under Section 69B of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the ITAT or the High Court regarding this issue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B, implying that the addition was justified. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition ignoring provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act whereby a statement may be used as evidence in any proceeding under the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the ITAT or the High Court regarding this issue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argues that the ITAT's deletion of the addition was incorrect because it disregarded the provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act, which allows statements made during a search to be used as evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 69B,Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1241/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. . versus . RATTAN MEHTA ..... Respondent Through: None. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 27.08.2010 . . CM 15014/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and regard being had to the assertions made in the application, we find sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, accordingly, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. . ITA 1241/2010 page 1 of 2. . ITA 1241/2010 The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ?Act?) is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 3. Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.61,46,721/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income under Section 69B of the Act? . 4. Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition ignoring provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act whereby statement may be used as evidence in any proceeding under the Income Tax Act? . Issue notice. Filing of paper book stands dispensed with. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 27, 2010 js . . ITA 1241/2010 page 2 of 2. . . 22 $

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →