THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -3 vs. UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/291/2018HC DelhiDLHC01032926201812 March 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court agreed with the findings of the lower appellate authorities, the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The reasoning was that in the absence of any incriminating material seized during search operations, the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in bringing to tax amounts that were already disclosed and formed part of the existing record. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del) was relied upon. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to disallow interest and make additions in a completed assessment of the assessee, Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers (P) Ltd. The lower appellate authorities, including the CIT(A) and the ITAT, were of the view that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have brought to tax amounts already disclosed and part of the record, in the absence of any incriminating material seized during search operations. The authorities relied on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in disallowing interest and making additions in a completed assessment of the assessee, contrary to the findings of the lower appellate authorities. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous. The assessee argued that the lower appellate authorities, the CIT(A) and the ITAT, correctly held that in the absence of any incriminating material seized during search operations, the AO could not tax amounts already disclosed and part of the record. The assessee relied on the precedent set in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 291/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant

Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.

versus

UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandni, Advs.

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

O R D E R %

12.03.2018

The Revenue’s appeal urges that the Tribunal fell into error in disallowing of interest and making addition in completed assessment of the assessee/respondent. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT in the present case were of the opinion that in the absence of any incriminating material seized in the course of search operations, the AO could not have brought to tax the amounts that were already disclosed and part of the record. The lower appellate authorities relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del). No question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MARCH 12, 2018/rc

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →