PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI vs. NEW VIDEO PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/576/2017HC DelhiDLHC01288458201705 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 noted that the explanation offered by the Assessee regarding repayment to the creditors in subsequent years was accepted by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court stated it was not inclined to examine the question as urged by the Revenue. However, the Court explicitly left the question open for consideration in an appropriate case. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals and pending applications.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against an order dated 16th December 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals pertain to Assessment Year 2007-08. The ITAT had confirmed an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which deleted an addition of Rs. 21,64,518. The addition was made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The sole ground for deletion by the CIT(A) and confirmation by the ITAT was that the assessee had made payments to the creditors in subsequent years. The Revenue's appeals are before the High Court of Delhi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs. 21,64,518 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, solely on the ground that the assessee made payments to the creditors in subsequent years? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the fact that the assessee's explanation regarding repayment to creditors in subsequent years was accepted by the Revenue implies the assessee argued this was sufficient to discharge their onus under Section 68. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in confirming the deletion of the addition made under Section 68, as the deletion was based solely on payments made in subsequent years. The Revenue sought to urge this question before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

( \ ! $--5 & 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 576/2017 PRo COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate . • versus NEW VIDEO PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. + ITA No. 577/2017 & C.M. No. 26810/2017 PRo COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate. versus NEW VIDEO PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 0/0 05.09.2017 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 16th December 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (IT AT) in ITA No. 2587IDe1l2011 and ITA No.29561Del/2011 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2007-08 CAY'). ITA Nos. 576 & 57711017 Page Nos. 1 of1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

2.

The question sought to be urged in the present appeals is whether the IT AT was justified in confinning the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] which deleted the addition of Rs.21,64,518/­ under Section 68 of the Act only on the ground that the payments to the creditors have been made by the Assessee in the subsequent years. 3. The fact remains that the explanation offered by the Assessee regarding • repayment to the creditors in subsequent years was accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is not inclined to examine the question as urged. Nevertheless, the question is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. 4. The appeals and pending application are dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. p~.. PRATHIBAM. SINGH,J. SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 srb ITA Nos. 576 & 57712017 Page Nos. 2 of2

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →