COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIX vs. VIKAS GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1082/2017HC DelhiDLHC01492666201728 November 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time, with a delay of 1330 days. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay could not be entertained. The Court further observed that even on merits, the ITAT's decision could not be faulted. The ITAT had affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that sufficient explanation was available for the amounts, despite the initial lack of explanation by the assessee during assessment. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report did not contain any adverse comments. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose. The application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the deletion of amounts brought to tax under Section 68. The appeal was filed 1330 days after the prescribed period. The assessee is Vikas Gupta, and the appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax-XIX. The High Court of Delhi was considering the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had affirmed the findings of the CIT(A), who had found sufficient explanation for the amounts, even though the assessee initially failed to provide it during assessment. A remand report by the Assessing Officer also contained no adverse comments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is hopelessly barred by time, and if so, whether the application for condonation of delay can be entertained? (Question of procedure/limitation) 2. Whether the deletion of amounts brought to tax under Section 68 by the ITAT, affirming the CIT(A)'s order, is erroneous? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 68) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded as none appeared. Revenue: Argued that the deletion of amounts brought to tax under Section 68 was erroneous. The Revenue's primary contention, as evidenced by the judgment, was that the appeal was filed with a significant delay, and the application for condonation of delay should not be entertained. The merits of the ITAT's decision were also challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 1082/2017 Page 1

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1082/2017, CM APPL.43244/2017 (for condonation of delay)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Versus

VIKAS GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R %

28.11.2017

The Revenue‟s appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 complaining that the deletion of amounts brought to tax under Section 68 is erroneous as hopelessly barred by time. The record disclosed that the appeal was refiled 1330 days after the prescribed period. The application for condonation of delay, therefore, cannot be entertained. Consequently, the appeal too has to be dismissed. On the merits too, the ITAT‟s decision cannot be faulted; it affirmed the findings of the CIT (A) who had after considering the records concluded that the sufficient explanation was available even though the assessee was unable to give such explanation in the course

ITA 1082/2017 Page 2

of the assessment proceedings. The Court also notices that in the remand report, the Assessing Officer did not make any adverse comment. As such no question of law too arises. For the above reasons, the application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2017 /vikas/

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →