PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 1 vs. SHRI SHIV PRIYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/941/2017HC DelhiDLHC01415280201707 November 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 arose for consideration. The Tribunal had followed the decision of the High Court itself in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573. This precedent established that in the absence of incriminating material discovered during a search, an Assessing Officer cannot reopen a concluded assessment. Consequently, the deletion of the addition by the Tribunal was upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 1,46,38,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was made pursuant to a search operation, following which a notice under Section 153A was issued. The AO had brought this amount to tax as deemed dividend. The ITAT's decision was based on the principle that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, the AO could not reopen the assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,46,38,000/- made as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search operation. The Revenue contended that the deletion of the addition was not justified. The Revenue argued that the AO had correctly brought the amount to tax as deemed dividend. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue beyond this general assertion. The Respondent (assessee) did not appear before the High Court, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 941/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 1 ..... Appellant Through : Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus SHRI SHIV PRIYA ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 07.11.2017 1. The Revenue urges that the deletion of Rs.1,46,38,000/-, brought to tax as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified in the circumstances. 2. This Court notices that the amounts were added, pursuant to assessment as a consequence of the search undertaken after which notice was issued under Section 153A. The Tribunal merely followed the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 holding that in the absence of incriminating material, the Assessing Officer could not have re-opened the complete assessment. Therefore, no question of law arises. 3. The Appeal is dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 07, 2017/‘Sn’

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →