COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XII vs. RAVIDER AGGARWAL (HUF)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/28/2018HC DelhiDLHC01499932201710 January 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ground for condoning the delay of 1548 days, citing extraordinary workload, was wholly inadequate. The Court noted that the appeal was returned under objections and kept unattended for over four years, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court found no question of law with respect to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80IC. It agreed with the CIT(A) and ITAT that the omission to furnish quantitative details in Form-3CD, in the absence of other defects, was not a sufficient ground to deny the deduction. The Court did not discern any legal issue on this aspect. Consequently, both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-XII (the appellant/revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of 1548 days. The assessee is Ravider Aggarwal (HUF). The ITAT had affirmed the decision of the CIT(A), who had set aside the Assessing Officer's (AO) rejection of a deduction claim under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had rejected the claim due to a defective Form-3CD, which lacked accurate particulars, specifically quantitative details of raw materials and finished goods. The CIT(A) found this omission insufficient to deny the deduction, absent other defects.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay of 1548 days in filing the appeal, considering the stated reason of extraordinary workload and the fact that the appeal was returned for objections and remained unattended for over four years? 2. Whether there is a question of law with respect to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the CIT(A) and ITAT allowed the deduction despite a defective Form-3CD lacking quantitative details of raw materials and finished goods? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the appeal should be heard on merits, implying the delay should be condoned and the deduction under Section 80IC was impermissible due to the defective Form-3CD. The revenue relied on the AO's reasoning for rejecting the deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 28/2018 & CM No.957/2018 (condonation of delay)

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

versus

RAVIDER AGGARWAL (HUF)

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

10.01.2018

The ground for condoning the delay of 1548 days, in filing of the present appeal, in the opinion of the Court, is wholly inadequate. The only reason cited is extraordinary workload. The record shows that the appeal originally filed was returned under objections and was kept unattended for over four years. The application, therefore, deserves to be rejected.

The Court notices that even otherwise, the only ground on which question of law urged is with respect to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) set aside the findings of the AO, rejecting the claim on the ITA No.28/2018

Page 1 of 2

ground that a defective Form-3CD had been furnished without accurate particulars. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the omission to furnish the quantitative details of raw materials and finished goods in the audit report in Form-3CD in the absence of any other defect being pointed out with respect to the data itself, could not be the lone ground for denying deduction to the appellant which view was affirmed by the ITAT. This Court does not discern any question of law on this aspect.

The application for condonation of delay and the appeal are consequently dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J JANUARY 10, 2018 kks

ITA No.28/2018

Page 1 of 2

More judgments on Section 80IC

All 1,180 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →