PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 6, vs. NEW HORIZON BUILDWELL P. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1107/2017HC DelhiDLHC01453913201705 December 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals. This was because the issues were covered by the ratio laid down by the High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and allowing the assessee's cross-appeal, effectively upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the materials were not incriminating. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, New Horizon Buildwell P. Ltd., was subjected to search assessment under Section 153A/143 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concluded that the materials relied upon by the Revenue to bring certain amounts to tax were not incriminating. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's arguments on merits. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dealt with the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-appeal through a common order. The ITAT allowed the assessee's cross-appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing the assessee's cross-appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal, thereby holding that the materials relied upon by the Revenue were not incriminating, despite the search assessment proceedings under Section 153A/143 for AY 2006-07? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the materials found during the search were not incriminating and therefore, could not be the basis for addition to income. The assessee relied on the decision of the High Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the materials were indeed incriminating and justified the additions made. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue beyond their general contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 1107 & 1112/2017 Page 1

$~28&47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 1107/2017, CM APPL.44155/2017 &

ITA 1112/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz, Advocate.

versus

NEW HORIZON BUILDWELL P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain with Ms. Rano Jain and Ms. Devina Sharma, Advocates.

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

O R D E R %

05.12.2017

The assessee was subjected to search assessment under Section 153A/143 for AY 2006-07. However, the CIT (A) after considering the materials on record concluded that the so called incriminating materials, which were sought to be the basis for bringing the amounts to tax, were not really so. He accepted the arguments of the assessee on the merits. The Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross appeal were dealt with by the impugned common order. The ITAT allowed the assessee’s cross appeal and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal based upon the decision of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. Since the questions are covered by the ratio in Kabul Chawla (supra),

ITA 1107 & 1112/2017 Page 2

no substantial question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J DECEMBER 05, 2017 /vikas/

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →