PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. M/S APPOLO TRAEXIM PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The ITAT had set aside the search assessment on the grounds that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material recovered during the search. The High Court explicitly relied on its own prior decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573, which likely established the principle that without such material, additions pursuant to a search are unsustainable and do not present a question of law for appellate review. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No specific amount in dispute is mentioned, and the procedural history beyond the ITAT's order and the Revenue's appeal is not detailed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside a search assessment. The basis for the ITAT's decision was that the additions made in the assessment, which were determined pursuant to a search, were not supported by any incriminating material seized during the search. The ITAT relied on the High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla. The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3 against M/s Apollo Traexim Pvt. Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not specified.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an ITAT order when no substantial question of law arises, as held by the ITAT in reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla. Assessee's Contention: The ITAT correctly set aside the search assessment because the additions were not based on any incriminating material seized during the search, and therefore, no substantial question of law arises for the High Court to consider. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the ITAT's decision to set aside the assessment was erroneous and that a substantial question of law does arise, warranting an appeal to the High Court. The Revenue's specific arguments regarding the validity of the additions or the interpretation of the search provisions are not detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 448/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
M/S APPOLO TRAEXIM PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R %
13.04.2018
The Revenue appeals against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which set aside the search assessment, on the ground that the additions made on account of disallowance determined pursuant to the search assessment, were not based upon seizures of any incriminating material recovered during the course of the search. The ITAT relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla’, 380 ITR 573.
In these circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J APRIL 13, 2018/ndn
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
