THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CLASSIC MOTORS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/166/2005HC DelhiDLHC01059126200503 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in law in deleting the additions of Rs.13,35,000/- and Rs. 2,80,000/-. This decision was based on the High Court's prior dismissal of similar appeals filed by the Revenue against the same assessee for Assessment Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, where the same question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. The principle established is that consistent findings on identical issues for different assessment years, when upheld by the Tribunal and not successfully challenged by the Revenue in prior appeals, should be followed. The question framed by the court was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 26th February 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 962/Delhi/2002. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 1991-92. The High Court admitted the appeal on 24th March 2004 and framed a specific question of law. The dispute involved additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of booking of vehicles in bogus/fictitious names. The High Court had previously dismissed similar appeals filed by the Revenue against the same assessee for Assessment Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, concerning the same issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the additions of Rs.13,35,000/- and Rs. 2,80,000/- respectively made on account of booking of vehicles in bogus/fictitious names? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the High Court's decision implies that the assessee would have supported the ITAT's order deleting the additions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the additions made on account of bogus/fictitious vehicle bookings were justified. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments before the High Court, but it is implied that they sought to uphold the additions made by the Assessing Officer and challenged the ITAT's deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 3 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-103 +

ITA 166/2005

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant

Through: None

versus

CLASSIC MOTRS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Manu Monga, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

03.05.2017

1.

This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is directed against the order dated 26th February, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 962/Delhi/2002 for the Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92. By order dated 24th March, 2004 the appeal was admitted and the following question of law was framed: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the additions of Rs.13,35,000/- and Rs. 2,80,000/ - respectively made on account of booking of vehicles in the bogus/fictitious names?"

2.

By order dated 27th April, 2017 this court dismissed the appeals of the Revenue being ITA Nos. 1/2005 and 11/2005 against orders of the ITAT answering the same question in favour of the same Respondent Assessee for ITA 166/2005

Page 1 of 2

the AYs 1993-94 and 1994-95.

3.

Accordingly the question framed is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

4.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 03, 2017 B

ITA 166/2005

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →