COMMR. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL-I) vs. NEENA WADHWA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/83/2004HC DelhiDLHC01017289200426 July 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in law in holding that the Block Assessment order passed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on May 29, 2001, was barred by limitation as per Section 158BE of the Act. The Court's decision was based on its prior ruling in ITA No. 27 of 2015 (CIT v. J.H. Finvest Pvt.Ltd.) dated November 30, 2015, which addressed a similar question. The ratio decidendi is that if a Block Assessment order is found to be time-barred under Section 158BE, it is invalid. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) as the appellant and Neena Wadhwa as the respondent. The assessment pertains to a block period from April 1, 1988, to February 11, 1999. The challenge is to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on January 20, 2003, in IT(SS) Appeal No. 100/Del/2002. The ITAT had held that the Block Assessment order, passed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on May 29, 2001, was barred by limitation as per Section 158BE of the Act. The High Court framed a specific question of law for consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Block Assessment order passed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on May 29, 2001, is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The ITAT correctly held that the Block Assessment order was barred by limitation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in law by holding the Block Assessment order to be barred by limitation. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments or any authorities/precedents they relied upon, other than implicitly challenging the ITAT's finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BC,Section 158BE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 83/2004 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R.10 +

ITA 83/2004

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(CENTRAL-1)

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhary, Senior Standing

counsel & Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.

versus

NEENA WADHWA

..... Respondent

Through: Mr.C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate

With Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

26.07.2016

1.

The question framed by this Court on 24th March 2008 in this appeal against the order dated 20th January 2003 passed by the ITAT in IT(SS) Appeal No. 100/Del/2002 for the block period from 1st April 1988 to 11th February 1999 reads as under: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Block Assessment order passed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29th May, 2001 is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2.

It is not in dispute that the said question stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court dated 30th November 2015 in ITA No. 27 of 2015 (CIT v. J.H. Finvest Pvt.Ltd.).

ITA 83/2004 Page 2 of 2

3.

The question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JULY 26, 2016 mg

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →