PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA vs. NARENRDA IMPEX LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/561/2017HC DelhiDLHC01288920201701 September 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi addressed the two questions of law presented by the Revenue. Regarding the first question concerning the quashing of the order under Section 153C, the Court noted that this issue was covered against the Revenue by its prior decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del). Consequently, the Court was not inclined to frame an issue on this point. Concerning the second question regarding the allowance of the application under Rule 27, the Court was of the view that, in the present facts, this question did not require examination and could be considered in an appropriate future case. The Court did not provide a ratio decidendi for either issue, as it did not delve into the merits of the arguments. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Agra, filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order dated 22nd December, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.5945/Del/2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to quash an order passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the ITAT's allowance of an application made by the assessee, Narendra Impex Ltd., under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Revenue was represented by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel, while the respondent assessee was not represented.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was correct in law in quashing the order passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was correct in law in allowing the application made under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, without appreciating that the assessee was required to file a cross-objection in terms of Section 253(4) read with Rule 22 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, for raising such plea/grounds before the Ld. ITAT? Contentions of the Revenue: For question A, the Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in quashing the order under Section 153C. For question B, the Revenue contended that the ITAT wrongly allowed the application under Rule 27, as the assessee should have filed a cross-objection under Section 253(4) read with Rule 22 to raise the grounds. Contentions of the Assessee: No arguments were recorded for the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 253(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 561/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel. versus NARENDRA IMPEX LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 01.09.2017 1. The following two questions are urged in this appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 22nd December, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.5945/Del/2013for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09. “A. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was correct in law in quashing the order U/s 153C of the Act? B. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was correct in law in allowing the application made under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 without appreciating the fact that the assessee was required to file cross objection in terms of section 253(4) read with Rule 22 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for raising such plea/grounds before the Ld. ITAT?” 2. As far as question A is concerned, it is seen that it is covered against the

Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del). This Court is, therefore, not inclined to frame an issue in this regard. 3. As far as question B is concerned, the Court is of the view that in the facts of the present case, the said question does not require to be examined. It can be considered in an appropriate case. 4. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 dk

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →