CIT vs. ESCORTS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 2105 / 2010HC Delhi06 January 20111 pages
For Petitioner: RASHMIU CHOPRA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order, which had allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the notice under Section 148. The ITAT's reasoning was that the revenue failed to produce evidence of satisfaction by a Member of the CBDT, which was deemed necessary based on the precedent of J.C. Mukherjee and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer. The ITAT had also granted liberty to the revenue to seek revival of the appeal if they could later provide the required evidence of satisfaction. Since the revenue did not present such evidence even before the High Court, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT's decision was based on the absence of requisite satisfaction for issuing the notice. The ITAT relied on the judgment in J.C. Mukherjee and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer, which held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is the competent authority to record such satisfaction. In this case, an endorsement by an Under Secretary was presented, but the revenue failed to produce a record showing satisfaction by a Member of the CBDT despite repeated opportunities. The ITAT granted liberty to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal if the revenue could later produce evidence of such satisfaction. The High Court was hearing an appeal against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of missing requisite satisfaction. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT correctly quashed the notice because the revenue failed to demonstrate the requisite satisfaction by a competent authority, specifically a Member of the CBDT, as required by law and supported by the precedent in J.C. Mukherjee and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer. The endorsement by an Under Secretary was insufficient. Revenue's contention: The revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the fact that they failed to produce evidence of satisfaction by a Member of the CBDT despite opportunities suggests they contended that the notice was validly issued or that the satisfaction was adequately recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 06.01.2011 . Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. . +ITA No. 2105/2010 . The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that requisite satisfaction, as required for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, was missing. Reliance upon the judgment of J.C. Mukherjee and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer 198 ITR 748, was placed wherein it is held that the competent authority to record such satisfaction is the Central Board of Direct Taxes (?CBDT?). In the present case, the endorsement of the Under Secretary was shown to the Tribunal. Inspite of repeated opportunities given, the record showing satisfaction by the Member of CBDT was not produced. It was on this basis that the appeal is allowed and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is quashed. At the same time the Tribunal has given liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal, in case the revenue is able to find out the evidence showing such satisfaction by the Member of the CBDT. Even in this appeal no such satisfaction is filed. Once a liberty is given by the Tribunal itself, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. ITA No. 2105/2010 page 1 of 2 . . . . . The appeal along with the pending application, is accordingly, dismissed. . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. . JANUARY 6, 2011 AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No. 2105/2010 page 2 of 2 . . . 13-A #

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →