PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 DELHI vs. KRBL FOODS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the appellant-Revenue was unable to produce the original seized documents, which were crucial for examining the veracity of their contentions. The Court observed that the appellant had been granted multiple opportunities to produce the record. The email from the Assessing Officer indicated that the relevant hard disk was approximately 10 years old, and certain files/data had become corrupted and were not readily accessible. The Court concluded that the appellant's contentions essentially revolved around a finding of fact that had been recorded by both the Appellate Authorities (CIT(A) and Tribunal). The Court found no reason to interfere with these findings, stating that they could not be considered perverse. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The Court also granted liberty to the Department to file an application for revival if they were able to produce the original documents, which would be considered on its own merits.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Delhi (Revenue), challenged an order dated 08.06.2023 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had rejected the Revenue's appeals, upholding an order dated 28.01.2019 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Revenue's core contention was that a seized document at page 52 of the paperbook, mentioning an amount of Rs. 1,28,27,500/-, referred to the respondent-assessee, KRBL Foods Ltd. However, the authorities below had concluded that the inscription was 'KRBL Infrastructure Ltd.' and not attributable to the respondent. The Delhi High Court had directed the Revenue to produce the original seized document for examination. Despite multiple opportunities, the Revenue failed to produce the original document, citing that it was part of a hard disk that had become corrupted and data was not readily accessible.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the seized document at page 52 of the paperbook does not refer to the respondent-assessee, KRBL Foods Ltd., is perverse, considering the Revenue's contention that it reflects an amount of Rs. 1,28,27,500/- and the inscription appears to be 'KRBL Infrastructure Ltd.' (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of evidence). Assessee's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's finding was perverse. They relied on the seized document mentioning an amount of Rs. 1,28,27,500/-, which they claimed pertained to the respondent-assessee. The authorities below had erred in concluding it was 'KRBL Infrastructure Ltd.' and not attributable to the respondent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's primary argument was based on the seized document. They contended that the inscription on the document, coupled with the amount mentioned, pointed to the respondent-assessee. The lower authorities had misconstrued the inscription.
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
By way of the present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), the appellant has challenged the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘H’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA Nos.3962/Del/2019 and 3963/Del/2019, whereby the appeals preferred by the Revenue were rejected and the order dated 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 25/07/2026 at 11:45:31
2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld.
The basic case of the Revenue is that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the seized document at page no.52 of the appeal paperbook, mentions the name of the respondent-assessee reflecting an amount of Rs.1,28,27,500/-, whereas the Authorities below had found that it is not the name of the respondent-assessee and what appears to be written is KRBL Infrastructure Ltd., which inscription cannot be attributed to the respondent.
On 09.04.2026, this Court had directed the appellant-Revenue to produce the original seized documents so that the issue can be examined, but the Revenue failed to produce the same. On previous date of hearing i.e., 13.05.2026 we had observed thus:
“1. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Income Tax Department informs the Court that the relevant record as directed, has been brought and is ready for perusal of the Court.
We had called not the entire record on 09.04.2026. It may be noticed that we have ordered thus:
“1. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant in presence of the Assessing Officer (AO) prays for last opportunity of four weeks to trace the record and produce the original seized document mentioned at page no. 52 of paper book.
Request acceded to.
Since a number of opportunities have been granted, we make it clear that in case the Department fails to produce the original document and record, we shall be constrained to dismiss the appeal for want of 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 25/07/2026 at 11:45:31
prosecution”
Accordingly, we only proposed to examine the original document, scanned copy whereof has been pasted on page No. 52 of the paper-book.
List this case on 25.05.2026. 5. The appellant shall flag the above referred original documents from the seized record and show to the court”
Today also, Mr.Apoorv Aggarwal, learned junior standing counsel for the respondent, has expressed his inability and has produced an email dated 17.07.2026 sent by the Assessing Officer to Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant-Revenue, which reads as follows: “Sir/Madam, Kindly refer to the trail mail. Kindly refer to the ongoing proceedings in the case of KRBL Foods Ltd. pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the communications exchanged regarding tracing and production of the alleged incriminating image/data recovered during the course of search proceedings in the case of ISRPL Group. In continuation of the earlier communication from this office, it is submitted that the matter was immediately taken up with Circle-10(1), Delhi, where the present juri iction over the PAN of Ms. Chanchal Taneja and M/s Index Securities & Research Pvt. Ltd. lies. In response thereto, the ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi vide mail dated has informed that: "one sealed hard disk along with one working copy and certain records pertaining to the said search proceedings has now been traced from the old records. However, during the process of examination/extraction of the working copy of hard disc, it has been observed that the said hard disk is approximately 10 years old and certain files/data contained therein appear to have become corrupted and are presently not readily accessible/retrievable. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:45:31
The ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi has further informed that efforts are presently being undertaken on priority basis through all possible technical means to retrieve and recover the available data from the said hard disk in view of the urgency involved and the directions of the Hon'ble High Court" Accordingly, it is requested that the aforesaid factual position may kindly be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court. This is for your kind information and further necessary action.”
It is, therefore, clear that the appellant is unable to produce the original seized documents on the basis of which the veracity of the contentions raised by the appellant can be examined. In any event, what has been contended by the appellant essentially revolves around a finding of fact, which has been recorded by both the Appellate Authorities, which in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the present appeal.
The appeal along with pending application is, accordingly, dismissed.
In case the Department is able to produce the original documents, it shall be free to file an application for revival, which shall be considered on its own merits. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 23, 2026 kk 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 25/07/2026 at 11:45:31
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
