PR. CIT-17 vs. SH. KRISHNA BANSAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/328/2015HC DelhiDLHC01234261201502 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 of Delhi noted that the Revenue had been unsuccessful in serving the Assessee for two years and was seeking substituted service. The tax effect was marginally above the Department's threshold. The Court observed that the question sought to be urged by the Revenue concerned the deletion of an addition made by the AO under Section 40(ia) read with Section 194C. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT had concurrently held against the Revenue. The Court found that this finding was factual and not shown to be perverse. Therefore, the Court left the question open for consideration in an appropriate case and dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Pr. CIT-17) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order concerning the Assessee, Sh. Krishna Bansal. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The Revenue sought to serve the Assessee through substituted service, having been unsuccessful in serving them for two years. The tax effect in the present case was marginally above the Department's threshold for appeals. The core issue involved the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 40(ia) read with Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had ruled against the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the deletion of an addition made by the AO under Section 40(ia) read with Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, considering the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT against the Revenue? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Assessee. The Assessee was not represented, and no arguments were presented on their behalf. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue sought to urge a question concerning the deletion of an addition made by the AO under Section 40(ia) read with Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment implies the Revenue was challenging the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. The Revenue's arguments are not detailed, but the appeal itself indicates a disagreement with the deletion of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(ia),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 328/2015

PR. CIT-17

..... Appellant Through: Mr.Duleep Shivpuri, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

Versus

SH. KRISHNA BANSAL

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

02.05.2017 1. For the last two years, the Revenue has tried to unsuccessfully serve the Assessee. It has come to a point now where the Revenue is seeking to serve the Assessee through substituted service. Although the application is not on record, it is handed over in Court.

2.

It is seen that the tax effect in the present case is only marginally above that set by the Department for its appeals.

3.

The question sought to be urged concerns the deletion an addition made by the AO under Section 40(ia) read with Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held against the Revenue. ITA 328/2015

Page 1 of 2

The finding is factual and is not shown to be perverse. In the circumstances, the question urged is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

4.

The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 02, 2017 ‘anb’

ITA 328/2015

Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 40(ia)

All 26 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →