PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VASHISTHA BUILDERS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/468/2016HC DelhiDLHC01166064201624 August 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The court noted that the ITAT's findings on the factual analysis concluded that the assessee had objected to the delayed notice under Section 143(2), a fact that the CIT(A) had overlooked. Regarding the applicability of Section 292BB, the High Court observed that the ITAT had considered this point and, in any event, that provision is applicable for assessment years 2008-2009 onwards, whereas the present case concerned assessment year 2007-2008. Since the matter was based on a bare finding of fact, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 (the Revenue) appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside a remand order. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in doing so, specifically regarding the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer (AO) after the prescribed time. The ITAT's findings indicated that the assessee, Vashishtha Builders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., had indeed objected to the delayed notice, a fact that appeared to have been overlooked by the CIT(A). The Revenue also raised the issue of Section 292BB's applicability, which the ITAT had considered. The assessment year in question was 2007-2008.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the remand order on the ground that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the prescribed time, considering the assessee's objection to the delayed notice. 2. Whether Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable to the assessment year 2007-2008. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's findings, as noted by the High Court, indicate that the assessee objected to the delayed notice under Section 143(2). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue urged that the ITAT fell into error in setting aside the remand order on the ground of a delayed notice under Section 143(2). The Revenue also raised the issue of the applicability of Section 292BB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 468/2016 & C.M.No.26615/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rahul Chaudhary and Mr.Raghvendra, Advocates

versus

VASHISTHA BUILDERS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R %

24.08.2016

The revenue urges that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fell into error in setting aside the remand on the ground that notice under Section 143 (2) was issued by the AO after the time prescribed in that regard. This court notices – upon consideration of the submissions and material on record that ITAT’s findings on the factual analysis concluded that the assessee in fact objected to the delayed notice. This fact appears to have been overlooked by the CIT (A). So far as the ground urged with respect to applicability of Section 292 BB is concerned, the ITAT has considered this as well; in any event that provision can be made applicable for assessment year 2008-2009 onwards. The present concerns AY 2007-2008.

Being a bare finding of fact, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal along with the pending

application is therefore dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J AUGUST 24, 2016 rb

More judgments on Section 292BB

All 676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 292BB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →