PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs. RAJDARBAR HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 8,48,89,345/-, the Court found that both the CIT(A) and the ITAT had concurrently held that this amount had already been assessed to tax or considered while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, particularly in relation to the issue of capital gains. The Court considered this a finding of fact concurrently held by two authorities below and thus found no question of law arising to warrant interference under Section 260A. Concerning the addition of Rs. 42,08,00,000/- for alleged fictitious long-term capital loss on sale of shares, the Court agreed with the Tribunal and CIT(A) that no new information or material had come to the notice of the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings, and that this issue had been considered in the original assessment under Section 143(3). The Court found no error in the orders of the appellate authorities. The appeal and all interlocutory applications were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi (Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to reassessment proceedings. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to uphold the deletion of additions made during reassessment. Specifically, the additions in dispute were Rs. 8,48,89,345/- on account of bogus construction expenses and Rs. 42,08,00,000/- on account of alleged fictitious long-term capital loss on sale of shares. The Revenue contended that the reassessment was based on credible information from arbitral proceedings and that the issues were not properly analyzed in the original assessment. The High Court noted that the CIT(A) and ITAT had concurrently held that these amounts were already considered in the original assessment under Section 143(3).
What were the issues?
The questions before the High Court were: 1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in upholding the deletion of addition of Rs. 8,48,89,345/- on the ground of double addition without appreciating that the addition was made during reassessment based on credible information from an Arbitral Tribunal, and that additions in the original assessment were decided resulting in assessment at returned income (Section 147 of the Act)? 2. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in upholding the deletion of addition of Rs. 42,08,00,000/- on the ground of re-agitating an issue decided in the original assessment, without appreciating that this issue was never analyzed by the assessing officer during the original assessment (Section 147 of the Act)? 3. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in upholding the deletion of addition of Rs. 42,08,00,000/- without appreciating that this issue came to the notice of the assessing officer during reassessment proceedings and could be assessed as per the explanation to Section 147 of the Act? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the respondent was represented by 'None'. Revenue's contentions: The Tribunal erred in rejecting the revenue's appeal. The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from arbitration proceedings regarding bogus construction expenses of Rs. 8,48,89,345/-, which was not part of the original assessment under Section 143(3).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026 CM APPL. 35975/2026 (delay in re-filing)
Instant application has been filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking condonation of delay of 164 days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 164 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands allowed. ITA 441/2026
The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟), raises the following questions: “A. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in upholding the deletion of addition of Rs. 8,48,89,345/- on the ground of double This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2026 at 11:50:37
addition without appreciating that the aforesaid addition was made during the course of reassessment proceedings on the basis of credible information received from Arbitral Tribunal and also the additions made in the original assessment order have been decided by the appellate authorities which resulted in assessment at returned income? B. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in upholding the deletion of addition of Rs. 42,08,00,000/- on the ground of re-agitating the issue decided in original assessment without appreciating that this issue was never analysed during original assessment by the assessing officer? C. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in upholding the deletion of addition of Rs. 42,08,00,000/- without appreciating that this issue came to the notice of the assessing officer during the reassessment proceedings which may be assessed as per provisions of explanation to Section 147 of the Act?”
Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-department, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the revenue’s appeal. He pointed out from the Assessment order that the reasons for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated was the information which the Assessing Officer had received from the arbitration proceedings that an amount of Rs.8,48,89,345/- paid on account of bogus construction expenses which was not part of the assessment which was made under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and considering the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2026 at 11:50:37
material available on record, we find that both the Appellate Authorities viz. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as „CIT(A)‟) so also the Tribunal, have concurrently held that the amount of Rs.8.48 Crores had already been assessed to tax or had been considered while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961, while considering the issue of capital gain.
Firstly, as found by the appellate authorities this amount has been considered and secondly, it is purely a finding of fact concurrently held by two authorities below, we do not find any question of law emanating from the orders of the Appellate Authorities, so as to warrant our interference in exercise of our juri iction under Section 260A of the Act of 1961. 8. So far as the other addition which the Assessing Officer had made being addition of Rs. 42.08 Crores of alleged fictitious long term capital loss on sale of shares, the Tribunal and CIT(A) were justified in holding that no new information or material had come to the notice of the Assessing Officer and the same had been considered while passing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. We do not find any error in the orders of the Appellate Authorities in this regard as well.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed alongwith all interlocutory applications.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 19, 2026/nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2026 at 11:50:37
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
