THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELIH AUTOMOBILES LTD.

ITA - 686 / 2005HC Delhi27 October 20051 pages

For Petitioner: MR.R.D.JO;LLY

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and considered the substantial question of law. Regarding question (b) proposed by the Revenue, the Court noted that it was already decided against the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003 ITR 2003 (69)), and a subsequent Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, question (b) was not considered to be a substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. The Court then framed the only substantial question of law as whether the ITAT erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,62,864 on account of unclaimed balances written off. The judgment does not record the final decision or reasoning on this substantial question of law as it only admits the appeal and directs the appellant to file paper books. The operative directions are limited to admitting the appeal and listing it for further hearing.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which deleted an addition of Rs. 3,62,864. This addition was on account of unclaimed balances written off by the assessee, M/s Delhi Automobiles Ltd. The Revenue had filed an appeal with a delay, which was condoned by the High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal and heard arguments on the substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,62,864 on account of unclaimed balances written off? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. However, it notes that the ITAT had upheld the deletion made by the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue proposed two questions in its memo of appeal. Question (b) was already answered against the Revenue in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd. (2003 ITR 2003 (69)), and a Special Leave Petition against that order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, question (b) did not require consideration. The substantial question of law for consideration is whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,62,864 on account of unclaimed balances written off.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 686/2005 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. . versus . M/S DELIH AUTOMOBILES LTD. ..... Respondent Through : None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI . O R D E R 27.10.2005 . . CM No.11619/2005 . Heard. Allowed, delay in refiling of appeal is condoned. CM No.11619/2005 disposed of. ITA No.686/2005 ADMIT. Heard. In so far as question No. (b) proposed in the memo of appeal is concerned, the same is already answered against the Revenue in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd.; 2003 ITR 2003 (69). It is submitted by ITA No.686/2005 page 1 of 2 Mr. Jolly that a special leave petition filed against the said order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter question B does not really arise for consideration. The only substantial question of law which falls for con ideration in this appeal is formulated as under : G€˜G€˜Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the order of CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,864 on account of unclaimed balances written off ?.G€™G€˜ The appellant shall file within three months the requisite number of paper books in accordance with High Court Rules. Post for hearing in due course. . . T.S. THAKUR, J . . B.N.CHATURVEDI, J OCTOBER 27, 2005 sa . ITA No.686/2005 page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →