PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/896/2017HC DelhiDLHC01343500201727 October 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the deletion of amounts under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the completion of the assessments. The Tribunal followed the precedent set in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (383 ITR 448 (Del)), which was further affirmed in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line ([2016] 383 ITR 455). The High Court, in reviewing the ITAT's order, concluded that as a consequence of the ITAT's reasoning and reliance on established case law, no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had directed the deletion of certain amounts previously added by lower authorities under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT's decision was based on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued before the completion of the assessments. The Revenue has filed appeals against this ITAT order. The assessment years are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in directing the deletion of amounts added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the completion of assessments? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's order and implicitly contends that the deletion of amounts under Section 68 was incorrect. The Revenue's grievance stems from the ITAT's reliance on the absence of a Section 143(2) notice as a basis for deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~13 & 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 896/2017 & ITA 899/2017

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 4 .... Appellant

versus

GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

.... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

Mr. P.C. Yadav, Advocate

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R %

27.10.2017

The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT which directed the deletion of some amounts under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the lower authorities.

The ITAT premised its decision on the circumstance that no notice was issued under Section 143(2), before the completion of assessments.

The ITAT followed the view in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Del) That decision has further been affirmed in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line [2016] 383 ITR 455.

As a consequence, no substantial question of law arises.

The appeals are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 27, 2017rd

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →