COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANUPAM SWEETS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/216/2009HC DelhiDLHC01151658200808 February 2010Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal of the Revenue (ITA 216/2009) was rendered infructuous. This was because a separate appeal filed by the Revenue (ITA No. 220 of 2009) against the same common order of the ITAT dated January 31, 2008, had already been dismissed by the High Court by a separate order of even date. The ITAT's order had dismissed the Revenue's appeal by holding that no satisfaction under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was recorded by the AO having jurisdiction over the searched person. Consequently, the present appeal of the Revenue, on the merits of the addition, did not survive and was dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the addition was made by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal (ITA 216/2009) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated January 31, 2008. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal (IT (SS) A No.185/DEL/2006). The core of the ITAT's decision was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded satisfaction under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the searched person. The High Court noted that a separate appeal by the Revenue (ITA No. 220 of 2009) concerning the same ITAT order had already been dismissed by the Court on the same date. Therefore, the present appeal on the merits of the addition was rendered moot.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal by holding that no satisfaction under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the searched person. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the assessee would have supported the ITAT's order. The ITAT's order, as described in the facts, was based on the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO under Section 158BD. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue appealed the ITAT's order, implying they contended that the ITAT was incorrect in its finding regarding the satisfaction under Section 158BD. The Revenue likely argued that either satisfaction was recorded, or it was not a prerequisite for the action taken, or that the ITAT's interpretation of Section 158BD was flawed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 216/2009

Page 1 of 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 08th February, 2010

+ ITA 216/2009

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NEW DELHI

..... Appellant

- versus -

ANUPAM SWEETS HS-11, KAILASH COLONY NEW DELHI

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant

: Ms Rashmi Chopra For the Respondent : Mr S.R. Wadhwa

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

1.

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

1.

The appeal of the Revenue, being ITA No.220 of 2009, directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated the 31st January, 2008 in IT (SS) A No.185/DEL/2006, whereby the Tribunal

ITA 216/2009

Page 2 of 2

had dismissed the said appeal of the Revenue by holding that no satisfaction under Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the searched person, has already been dismissed by us by a separate order of even date.

2.

Thus, the present appeal of the Revenue, on the merits of the addition does not survive in view thereof, and is consequently dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J FEBRUARY 08, 2010 dn

More judgments on Section 158BD

All 209 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →