PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 vs. M/S NEW INDIA CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/897/2017HC DelhiDLHC01353957201727 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 High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Court observed that the ITAT had followed the ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). The ITAT had explicitly extracted the ratio of the Kabul Chawla ruling in paragraph 6 of its impugned order. Since the ITAT's decision was based on a binding precedent of this Court, and the ITAT correctly applied it, no further question of law is presented. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had confirmed an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) which set aside a search assessment. The ITAT's reasoning was that the materials considered for taxation were not part of the seized documents, and therefore, the amounts could not be brought to tax. The lower authorities, including the ITAT, relied on the ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). The appeal is filed before the High Court of Delhi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration when the ITAT, in its order, has followed the ratio of the Delhi High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s New India City Developers Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the ITAT's order, which relied on Kabul Chawla, should be reviewed. The Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision to set aside the search assessment based on the premise that the materials used were not part of the seized documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 897/2017

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

versus

M/S NEW INDIA CITY DEVELOPERS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Misra, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Mr. Abhishek Rana, Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Saxena, Advocate for L&DO

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 had, while confirming the CIT’s order setting aside the search assessment, under Section 153C held that the materials that were taken into account were not part of the seized documents, and accordingly such amounts could not be brought to tax. In doing so, the lower authorities followed the ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del).

This Court is of the opinion that since Kabul Chawla was followed and the ITAT has extracted the ratio of that ruling in the impugned order (at para 6), no question of law arises.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 27, 2017rd

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →