LC FASHION PVT. LTD vs. ITO,WARD-15(1)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/609/2017HC DelhiDLHC01310944201708 August 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 held that the impugned order passed by the ITAT was an order of remand. Consequently, it did not raise any substantial question of law. The reasoning was that an order of remand, which directs further inquiry and verification by a lower appellate authority, does not, in itself, decide a question of law that warrants High Court intervention under Section 260A. Therefore, the High Court found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Assessee, L C Fashion Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Delhi High Court. The appeal challenged an order dated November 1, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 4450/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-2010. The ITAT's order had the effect of remanding an issue to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The remand was for the purpose of verifying details provided by the Assessee to explain certain credits, in accordance with Section 68 of the Act. The High Court considered the nature of the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT's order, which remands an issue to the CIT(A) for verification of details concerning credits under Section 68 of the Act, raises a substantial question of law. The Assessee contended that the ITAT's order was one of remand. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around whether a remand order by the ITAT, which necessitates further factual verification, can be considered a substantial question of law for an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 609/2017 L C FASHION PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain and Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocates. versus ITO,WARD-15(1) ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 08.08.2017 CM No.28224/2017 (exemption) 1. Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.28223/2017 (delay in filing) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA 609/2017 3. The Assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) challenging the order dated 1st November, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4450/Del/2015 for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-2010.

4.

By the impugned order, the ITAT has remanded the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for verification of the details furnished by the Assessee seeking to explain the credits for the purposes of Section 68 of the Act. ' 5. Considering that the impugned order is one of remand, it does not raise any substantial question of law. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. AUGUST 08, 2017 dk

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →