PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANTHEM INFRATECH PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/843/2016HC DelhiDLHC01247920201602 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the concurrent findings of both the CIT(A) and the ITAT on the issues turned purely on facts. The Court was not persuaded to hold that these concurrent findings suffered from any legal infirmity or gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no specific issue left undecided as the appeal itself was dismissed on the ground of not raising a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 1st March, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 4786/Del/2011. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2004-05. The issue under challenge is the ITAT's confirmation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] decision to delete additions of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had made these additions under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act, respectively. The High Court heard arguments from both the Revenue and the assessee, Anthem Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in law by confirming the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in law by confirming the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in law by confirming the deletion of additions made under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. The Revenue sought interference with the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 843/2016

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 21 +

ITA 843/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

ANTHEM INFRATECH PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

02.05.2017

CM No. 43730/2016 1. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. Delay of 35 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

ITA No. 843/2016 2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 1st March, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4786/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2004-05.

3.

The issue sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in law by confirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) who deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10

ITA 843/2016

Page 2 of 2

lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act respectively.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the assessment order dated 28th February, 2011 as well as the order of the 1st August, 2011 of the CIT (A) and the impugned order dated 1st March, 2016 of the ITAT, the Court is of the view that the concurrent finding of both the CIT (A) and the ITAT on the issue turned purely on facts. The Court is not persuaded to hold that the concurrent findings of both, the CIT (A) and the ITAT suffer from any legal infirmity and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference with the impugned order of the ITAT.

5.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 02, 2017 Rm

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →